Kinney v. Marcus et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 30 Motion to Vacate. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CHARLES KINNEY,
Plaintiff,

12

Case No. 16-cv-1260-LB
[Re: ECF No. 30]

v.

13
14

MICHELE R. CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

The plaintiff Charles Kinney moves the court to reconsider its decision to transfer the case to

19

the Central District on the grounds that 1) the court should have disqualified itself and 2) in any

20

event should not have transferred the case.1 The court finds that it can decide this matter without

21

oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The court denies the motion for reconsideration.

22
23

GOVERNING LAW

24

A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Federal

25

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.

26
27
Motion — ECF No. 30. Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖);
pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1

28

ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB)

1

1991). Reconsideration is an ―extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

2

finality and conservation of judicial resources.‖ Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

3

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).

4

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted. Twentieth Century–

5

Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980).

6

Rule 59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending a judgment. Rule 59(e) does

7

not state when a court should reconsider a prior decision, but the Ninth Circuit has stated that

8

―Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the district court ‗(1) is presented with newly

9

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
if there is an intervening change in controlling law.‘‖ Dixon v. Wallowa Cnty., 336 F.3d 1013,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

12

1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

13

And under Rule 60(b),

14

the court may relieve a party. . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . ,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

21

Generally speaking, though, a motion for reconsideration ―may not be used to relitigate old

22

matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of

23

judgment.‖ Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (referring to Rule 59(e));

24

see also Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1259–61 (9th Cir. 2004) (referring to Rule

25

60(b)); Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (interpreting Rule 59(e)). The sole exception is when the

26

court has committed ―clear‖ or ―manifest‖ error. Mere disagreement with a court‘s order, however,

27

does not provide a basis for reconsideration. See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th

28

Cir. 1999).
ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB)

2

ANALYSIS

1
2

1. Recusal
Mr. Kinney‘s first argument is that the court erred by referring to its prior order transferring a

3
4

different case in 2014; he argues that this is information from an impermissible extrajudicial

5

source.2 It is not. The court considers other opinions and other orders all the time, sometimes for

6

precedent, sometimes for procedural context, and sometimes for persuasive authority. This is not

7

unusual; it is ordinary.

8

2. The transfer was appropriate
This lawsuit challenges the defendants‘ debt-collection practices against Mr. Kinney in state

9

court; Mr. Kinney asserts that they violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.3 ‗Citing 15

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

U.S.C. § 1692i, Mr. Kinney argued in his opposition to the motion to transfer and again here that

12

venue for his complaint is exclusively in the Northern District.4 That venue statute requires debt

13

collectors to bring lawsuits to enforce debts against consumers 1) in the case of a lawsuit to

14

enforce an interest in real property, in the judicial district where the real property is located; or 2)

15

for other lawsuits, in the district where the consumer signed the contract sued upon or where the

16

consumer resides at the time the lawsuit is filed. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692i. The court considered Mr.

17

Kinney‘s arguments and transferred the case. Mr. Kinney‘s disagreement with the court‘s decision

18

does not form the basis for a motion to reconsider it.
CONCLUSION

19
20

The court denies the motion for reconsideration. This disposes of ECF No. 30.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: June 21, 2016

23

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
2

Motion — ECF No. 30 at 6 (referencing Order − ECF No. 29 at 4).

27

3

Complaint — ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 36-77.

28

4

Opposition — ECF No. 16 at 2; Motion — ECF No. 30 at 6-7.

ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB)

3