Gonzales v. The City of Antioch

Filing 60

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ANDREA GONZALES, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-04728-KAW

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

9
THE CITY OF ANTIOCH,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 52

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiffs to the above-captioned case move for reconsideration of the October 20, 2015

13
14

judgment entered in favor of Defendant City of Antioch. Defendant opposes the motion, which is

15

now fully briefed and suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule

16

7-1(b). Having considered the papers filed by the parties and the relevant legal authority, the

17

Court DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below.
I.

18

BACKGROUND1

On October 20, 2015, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

19
20

(Order, Dkt. No. 49.) The same day, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant and against

21

Plaintiffs. (Judgment, Dkt. No. 50.)
On November 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration along with a supporting

22
23

declaration. (Pls.' Mot., Dkt. No. 52; Yen Decl., Dkt. No. 53.) They ask that the Court deny the

24

Defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, remand the action to state court

25

given that Plaintiffs' federal causes of action are no longer viable.2 (Pls.' Mot. at 6.) On

26
1

27

The factual and procedural background of this case was set forth at length in the Court's order
granting summary judgment, and will not, therefore, be repeated here.

28

2

The Court, however, continues to have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even

1

November 23, 2015, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion. (Def.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 58.)

2

Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 30, 2015. (Pls.' Reply, Dkt. No. 59.)
II.

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "do not recognize a motion for reconsideration."

5

Captain Blythers, Inc. v. Thompson (In re Captain Blythers, Inc.), 311 B.R. 530, 539 (9th Cir.

6

BAP 2004). Instead, the rules recognize two types of motions by which to obtain post-judgment

7

relief: a motion to alter or amend judgment made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

59(e) and a motion for relief from judgment brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
The moving party's designation of any such motion is not controlling. Miller v.

9

Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). Where, as here, a motion seeking

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

post-judgment relief is filed within 28 days after the district court's entry of judgment, it is treated

12

as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ("A motion to

13

alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.");

14

see Lee-Thomas v. Prince George's Cty. Public Schools, 666 F.3d 244, 247 n.4 (4th Cir. 2012)

15

("We are satisfied that the Board's motion for reconsideration should be treated as a motion to alter

16

or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it was filed

17

within twenty-eight days of the judgment.") (citation omitted).
"There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion is

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24
25
26
27

after federal claims are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Although the Court has discretion to
dismiss remaining state law claims, it declined to do so before issuing its order on the motion for
summary judgment. See id. Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority in support of its request that the
Court rescind its order, one unfavorable to Plaintiffs, for the sole purpose of remanding the case to
state court. Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 merely allows a party to re-file any dismissed claims in state
court within 30 days in the event the Court declines to exercise discretion over state law claims.
3

28

For this reason, while Plaintiffs assert that they have brought this motion under Rules 59(e) and
60(b), the Court has only applied Rule 59(e).
2

1

internal quotations omitted). A motion to alter or amend a judgment "may not be used to relitigate

2

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

3

of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (internal quotations

4

omitted).
Rule 59(e) "offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality

5
6

and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

7

(9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). A district court has considerable discretion when

8

deciding a Rule 59(e) motion. Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063.
III.

9

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs bring the instant motion on the grounds that the Court committed clear error in

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

reaching its decision, which they claim is also manifestly unjust. (Pls.' Mot. at 3, 6.) They argue

12

that the case should be submitted to a jury because (1) Ernest Quinonez, the only independent

13

witness to the incident, stated that he never saw Mr. Gonzales raise the weapon, (2) "[i]t is the

14

province of a jury to decide if Mr. Gonzales' raising his arm for a fraction of a second while he has

15

already retreating from the police constituted a threat to the officers so as to justify the use of

16

deadly force," and (3) there is admissible video evidence of the incident that a jury should be

17

allowed to view and assess. (Id. at 2-6.) Plaintiffs assert that a reasonable jury can view the

18

video, listen to Mr. Quinonez's statement, and conclude that Mr. Gonzales never pointed or raised

19

his weapon, posing no imminent threat to officers.4 (Id. at 5.)

20

According to Plaintiffs, "[d]uring oral argument, Plaintiff's [sic] counsel may not have

21

properly highlighted these issues to the Court and why they create a triable issue of fact," and

22

"may not have adequately argued" the difference between raising an arm and pointing a weapon.

23

(Id. at 2, 4.)

24
25
26
27
28

4

Plaintiffs, however, concede that in his declaration, "Mr. Kelkar says that Mr. Gonzales' arm
comes up slightly, which is the same conclusion Defendant's expert Schott, reaches regarding the
slow motion video." Pls.' Mot. at 5. Plaintiffs go on to state "[n]onetheless, Plaintiffs do not rely
here on the expert declarations in showing there is a triable issue of fact and since Defendant
objected to the expert declarations in their reply anyway, Plaintiffs contend that it would be
reasonable that the Court not consider them as a basis for its ruling." Id. The Court declines to
revise the record in that manner.
3

1

To the extent Plaintiffs' counsel may not have properly highlighted, or may not have

2

adequately argued, certain issues during oral argument, it did so at its own peril. A motion to alter

3

or amend judgment "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present

4

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co., 554

5

U.S. at 485. Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to address these issues in its opposition brief and

6

during the extensive oral argument before the Court, and they did. The Court considered the

7

arguments Plaintiffs advanced, and the Court rejected them. Plaintiffs' desire to re-argue those

8

issues in order to emphasize or highlight certain points is not a proper basis upon which to grant a

9

motion to alter or amend the judgment. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.
1985) ("A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment is appropriately brought under Rule

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

59(e). . . . The motion was properly denied because, as [the Judge] noted, it presented no

12

arguments that had not already been raised in opposition to summary judgment.").
IV.

13

CONCLUSION

14

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 12/09/15
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4