Sunrise Specialty Company, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company,

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 33 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUNRISE SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 33

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01461-HSG

12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

13
14
15

Dkt. No. 33. For the reasons articulated below, the motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for partial

16
17

summary judgment and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 31. The

18

order directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close the case. Id. at 10. That

19

same day, the clerk entered judgment for Defendant and closed the action. Dkt. No. 32.
On September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

20
21

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. No.

22

33. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to submit “relevant case authority” that “was not

23

previously provided.” Id. at 1.

24

II.

DISCUSSION

25

A.

26

Civil Local Rule 7-9 states, “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims

Legal Standard

27

and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a

28

Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any

1
2

interlocutory order on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b).”
“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion is

3

necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

4

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

5

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

6

Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations

7

and citations omitted). Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy” that cannot be used to “relitigate

8

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

9

of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n. 5 (2008); Kona Enterprises,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, “[a] district court has

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).”

12

Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).

13

B.

14

Plaintiffs’ motion is improper under both Local Rule 7-9 and Rule 59(e). Local Rule 7-9

Analysis

15

permits a party to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration “[b]efore the entry of

16

a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.”

17

Here, the Court has already granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety,

18

entered judgment in favor of Defendant, and closed the case. See Dkt. Nos. 31, 32. Accordingly,

19

the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion under Local Rule 7-9.

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may not bring a motion for

21

reconsideration to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have

22

been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 486 n. 5; Kona

23

Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. Plaintiffs concede that they seek to submit a motion for

24

reconsideration in order to submit “relevant case authority” that “was not previously provided.”

25

Dkt. No. 33 at 1. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider arguments that Plaintiffs

26

admittedly could have raised in their summary judgment briefing. As such, the Court also

27

DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

28
2

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 33.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/3/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3