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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?