Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. Jurin et al

Filing 45

ORDER (1) REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND (2) CONTINUING THE OCTOBER 9, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/6/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
13
14

v.
GREGORY L. JURIN, et al.,

15
16
17

Defendants.

No. C 14-01881 LB
ORDER (1) REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND (2)
CONTINUING THE OCTOBER 9,
2014 CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

_____________________________________/
In this action (Case No. C14-01881 LB), Plaintiff Transamerica Life Insurance Company has

18

sued Gregory Jurin and James McCrea, alleging that they engaged in fraud and conspiracy to

19

commit fraud by claiming benefits under Mr. Jurin’s policy with Transamerica for long term care

20

insurance. Transamerica seeks declaratory judgment that Mr. Jurin is not entitled to the benefits and

21

damages for payments he allegedly fraudulently obtained. Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea moved to

22

dismiss Transamerica’s declaratory relief action on several grounds, including that the court should

23

dismiss (or, alternatively, stay) the action in favor of a second action (formerly Case No. C14-02882

24

LB) that Mr. Jurin subsequently filed against Transamerica and Dr. Mohinder Nijjar in state court.

25

After Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea filed their motion to dismiss, but before the court ruled on it,

26

Transamerica removed the second action from state court to this court. In its order denying the

27

motion, the court found the parties’ arguments about whether the court should dismiss or stay the

28

action in favor of the (former) state court action to be moot in light of that action being removed to

C 14-01881 LB
ORDER

1
2
3
4

federal court, so the court never addressed this issue.
Mr. Jurin then filed a motion to remand the second action back to state court. After that action
was reassigned to the undersigned, the court granted that motion and remanded the action.
In light of the court remanding the second action back to state court, Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea

5

now have filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsideration. See Motion, ECF No. 42.

6

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party must seek permission from the court prior to filing a motion

7

for reconsideration. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).1 In seeking permission from the court, the moving

8

party must specifically show:

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists
from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for
which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of
reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or
law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or

13
14
15
16

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
Even if the court grants a party leave to file a motion for reconsideration, reconsideration is only

17

appropriate in the “highly unusual circumstances” when (1) the court is presented with newly

18

discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or (3) there

19

is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dis. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

20

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “No motion for leave to file a motion for

21

reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or

22

in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” N.D. Cal.

23

Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, no response need be filed and no

24

hearing will be held concerning a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider.” N.D. Cal. Civ.

25
26
27
28

1

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) provides: “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the
claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a
Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any
interlocutory order made by that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). No party may
notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”
C 14-01881 LB
ORDER

2

1

L.R. 7-9(d).

2

Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea contend that a “new fact” has emerged since the court denied their

3

motion to dismiss, namely, the court’s remand of the second action back to state court. Basically,

4

they want the court rule on the arguments that it found to be previously moot because they are not

5

moot anymore.

6

The court agrees that Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea that consideration of the parties’ arguments

warranted. Rather than have Mr. Jurin and Mr. McCrea file a motion for reconsideration, and given

9

that the parties already addressed this issue in their briefs in support of and in opposition to Mr.

10

Jurin and Mr. McCrea’s motion to dismiss, the court will simply look back at that briefing and

11

revisit those arguments. If the court determines this issue cannot be decided on the papers or that a

12
For the Northern District of California

about whether the court should dismiss or stay the action in favor of the state court action is

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

hearing is necessary on the matter, the court (with the parties’ schedules in mind, of course) will set

13

one.

14

Further, in light of this order, the court continues the October 9, 2014 initial case management

15

conference to November 20, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District

16

Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. The parties shall file a joint case

17

management conference statement no later than November 13, 2014.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 14-01881 LB
ORDER

3