Chartis Specialty Insurance Company et al v. United States of America

Filing 111

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 105 Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. C-13-1527 EMC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 105)
13
14

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Chartis Specialty Insurance Company’s (“Chartis”)

15

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Chartis' request is GRANTED and the

16

proposed motion for reconsideration, located at docket number 105-1, will be filed.

17

The Court concludes that Plaintiff's reliance on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in

18

ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014), as intervening authority is

19

misplaced. ASARCO addressed a narrow question of first impression regarding the application of

20

Rule 15's relation back doctrine: “Can an amended pleading relate back if it includes allegations that

21

were expressly disclaimed in the original pleading?” Id. at 1005. Chartis’ original complaint in this

22

action did not expressly disclaim any claim or allegation later alleged in the First Amended

23

Complaint. ASARCO did not break new ground in any way material to this case. Accordingly,

24

Chartis has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration under N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-9(b).

25

Despite the fact that Chartis’ “motion is technically defective, the Court nonetheless has the

26

inherent authority to revisit and modify any interlocutory orders at any time prior to final

27

judgement.” Gong v. City of Alameda, No. C03-5495 TEH, 2007 WL 1223693, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

28

Apr. 24, 2007). “A district court may reconsider and reverse a previous interlocutory decision for

1

any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or

2

clarification of controlling law.” Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1102

3

(S.D. Cal. 2000).

4

Chartis is correct that the Court in its prior order on the United States’ motion to dismiss

5

determined, sua sponte, that the statute of limitations for Chartis’ subrogration claims should be

6

based on the date of the filing of the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court did not have

7

the benefit of briefing by the parties on whether the subrogration claims should relate back to the

8

filing of the original complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. Chartis’ motion for

9

reconsideration raises a substantial question as to whether its subrogation claim should be deemed to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

relate back to the filing of the original complaint.
The United States is ORDERED to file a response to Chartis’ substantive arguments in

12

favor of applying the relation back doctrine in these circumstances. This response shall not exceed

13

seven pages and shall be filed by Friday, December 9, 2014 at 5:00pm. Chartis may file a reply

14

not to exceed three pages by Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 5:00pm.

15

This order disposes of docket number 105.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: December 2, 2014

20

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2