Cobb v. Consunji et al

Filing 59

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu DENYING 53 Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 JASON E COBB, 12 13 Plaintiff, No. C-11-02496 DMR ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 14 CRISTINA CONSUNJI, et al., 15 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 On December 28, 2011, the court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff Jason Cobb’s lawsuit. 18 [Docket No. 52.] Plaintiff subsequently requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration with 19 respect to the court’s Order.1 [Docket No. 53.] In his motion, Plaintiff sought permission to file his 20 “Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge” pursuant 21 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72-3(a). 22 However, the rules identified by Plaintiff address referrals to magistrate judges from district court 23 judges. Here, the matter was originally assigned to this court. Defendants filed their consent to the 24 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge on July 18, 2011 [Docket No. 6], and Plaintiff filed his consent on 25 July 21, 2011 [Docket No. 12]. Accordingly, the rules cited by Plaintiff are inapplicable as the 26 27 28 1 On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to FRAP 3(A) and 4(A),” in which he appears to withdraw his request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. [Docket No. 57.] 1 undersigned is the presiding judge pursuant to the consent of all parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(c), and no matter has been referred from a district court judge. 3 Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for reconsideration “[b]efore the entry of a judgment 4 adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.” Once 5 judgment has been entered, as in the present case [Docket No. 58], reconsideration may be sought by 6 filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See 7 Hinton v. Pacific Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the court shall construe 8 Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. 9 reasons: 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final judgment for the following (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. 12 13 14 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The court finds that Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy 17 any of the Rule 60(b) factors. He has not established that relief is warranted because of mistake, 18 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. He does not show any fraud or misrepresentation by 19 Defendants; does not assert that the judgment is void; does not argue that the judgment should have 20 no prospective application; and does not raise any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 21 the judgment. 22 Plaintiff’s primary argument in support of his motion appears to be his belief that the court’s 23 December 28, 2011 Order is not “authentic,” as it is “contrary to the tone, reasoning, cited case law, 24 writing style and overall spirit” of the court’s September 27, 2011 Order [Docket No. 32] in which 25 the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and 26 granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (Pl.’s Mot. 1.) Plaintiff suggests that the court “may not have 27 actually been extended the opportunity to review Plaintiff’s response” to Defendants’ motion to 28 dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Pl.’s Mot. 2.) 2 1 The court notes that it carefully reviewed and considered all motion papers and supporting 2 documents filed in this case. Further, Plaintiff’s argument that the December 28, 2011 Order is 3 contrary to the reasoning of the September 27, 2011 Order, in which the court granted Plaintiff leave 4 to amend, is without merit. While, as noted in the September 27, 2011 Order, “[d]ismissal of a pro 5 se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 6 the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th 7 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad 8 faith, prejudice, and futility. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The court may also 9 consider whether pleadings have previously been amended. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 11 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff has already been given two opportunities to amend his complaint. First, in 12 ruling on Defendants’ first motion to dismiss, the court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his 13 complaint. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on October 18, 2011, and an errata thereto on 14 October 25, 2011. [Docket Nos. 39, 40.] In connection with his opposition to Defendants’ motion 15 to dismiss his first amended complaint, Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint, 16 which purportedly cured the deficiencies in the first amended complaint. [Docket No. 47.] Upon 17 reviewing the proposed second amended complaint, the court concluded that further leave to amend 18 would be futile, and accordingly dismissed the first amended complaint without leave to amend. 19 Plaintiff’s remaining arguments in support of his motion for relief from judgment are more 20 properly raised in an appeal of the court’s order and judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 21 DENIED. Dated: January 23, 2012 u a M. Ry NO 26 RT onn Judge D DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge ER H 27 28 3 FO 25 I LI 24 ERED ORD T IS SO R NIA S IT IS SO ORDERED. A 23 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 22 UNIT ED For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?