Critchlow v. Critchlow et al

Filing 66

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying 57 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 57 Motion to Amend/Correct.(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
ROBERT W. CRITCHLOW,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 12-01198 LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING RULE 52(B)
MOTION

v.
13
14

KATE E. CRITCHLOW, an individual, and
JOHN A. WANER, an individual, and DOES
1-50, inclusive,

[RE: ECF NO. 57]

15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17

INTRODUCTION

18

Robert Critchlow sued his father’s second wife, Kate Critchlow, and her former attorney John

19

Waner, alleging state tort claims against them for their allegedly wrongful conduct in connection

20

with his father’s estate. After several rounds of motions, the court dismissed the case with prejudice

21

on February 25, 2013 and entered judgment that day. See Order, ECF No. 55; Judgment, ECF No.

22

56.1 On March 21, 2013 (28 days later), Robert filed a Motion to Amend and/or Make Additional

23

Findings (the “Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). ECF No. 57. On March

24

27, 2013, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. See Docket. The Ninth Circuit stayed the case on April

25

3, 2013, pending this court’s ruling on the motion.

26
27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.

ORDER (C 12-01198 LB)

1

The court denies the motion.2

2
3

ANALYSIS
In the motion, Mr. Critchlow generally asks the court to amend its dismissal order to make legal

4

findings (e.g., as to the correct statute of limitations or to find that the statute of limitations did not

5

bar his claims), to allow him to amend to raise new claims under California Business and Profession

6

Code § 17001, and to essentially reconsider its prior order and address his claims differently.

7

Motion, ECF No. 57 at 102.

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

To the extent that Mr. Critchlow asks for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, the
rule does not apply. That rule allows a court to amend its findings in bench trials.
To the extent that Mr. Critchlow meant to raise a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e), the court denies the motion.
Rule 59(e) allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after entry of

13

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Reconsideration is appropriate if (1) the district court is

14

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an

15

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in the controlling

16

law. Securities & Exch. Comm’n v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir.

17

2010).

18

Mr. Critchlow raises the following arguments.

19

First, he argues that the court applied the wrong statute of limitations, and he disagrees with the

20

court’s ruling on when he had notice of his claims. See ECF No. 57 at 12-13, 15, 18-22. He cites no

21

intervening law, and the court does not find clear error or any ground for reconsideration.

22

Second, he seeks leave to amend to add a new claim under California Business and Professions

23

Code § 172001. Id. at 16-17. He does not attach an amended complaint, as the rules require. See

24

Civil Local Rule 10-1. In any event, the court gave him opportunities to amend previously. On this

25

record, he has not alleged new facts to support a new claim, and also, the court sees no basis for a

26

new claim based on the existing facts. Nothing changes the court’s conclusion that Mr. Critchlow

27
28

2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter to be suitable for
determination without oral argument and vacates the May 2, 2013 hearing.

ORDER (C 12-01198 LB)

2

1

failed to allege a plausible claim.

2

Third, he alleges that the court did not accept the allegations in his complaint as true, but that is

3

incorrect. Motion, ECF No. 57 at 22. The court applied the correct standard under Federal Rule of

4

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

5

CONCLUSION

6

The motion is denied. This disposes of ECF Nos. 28 & 29.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 22, 2013

9

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER (C 12-01198 LB)

3