Quillinan v. Ainsworth et al

Filing 109

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying #104 Motion for New Trial, or in the alternative, a motion for reconsideration. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 104

12
13

On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff Kevin Quillinan filed a motion for a new trial, or in the

14

alternative, a motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s order dismissing the first amended

15

complaint with prejudice. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 104.) On June 6, 2018, Defendants filed an

16

opposition. (Defs.’ Opp’n, Dkt. No. 105.)

17

Since there was no trial in this case, Plaintiff cannot obtain relief under Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 59. Moreover, the Federal Rules do not recognize motions for reconsideration,

19

but do allow a litigant to file a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60.

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Specifically, Rule 60 provides that a party may be relieved from a final

21

judgment or order based on “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not

22

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

23
24
25
26
27
28

Here, Plaintiff argues that he
has recently realized after gaining further information and
performing more research, that plaintiff’s claims may have been
more properly pleaded under 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), where monies
gained by named RICO defendants by illegal marijuana growing and
distributing activities, was invested in real property by the named
RICO defendants, resulting in damages to plaintiff by being
displaced from plaintiff’s business location, the subject warehouse.
(Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.) The Court disagrees. First, there is no newly discovered evidence; only a

1

newly discovered theory of liability. Second, in the order granting the motion to dismiss with

2

prejudice, the undersigned found that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring RICO claims, because his

3

injury—the eviction from his storage space—was not caused by any predicate act of racketeering,

4

and that there was no proximate cause, because any property owner could have elected to

5

terminate Plaintiff’s lease. (5/10/18 Order, Dkt. No. 102 at 5-8.) The alleged source of the funds

6

used to purchase the warehouse does not change the outcome, and, even if it did, evictions are not

7

actionable under RICO. Id. at 8.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

According, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Thus, at this juncture, Plaintiff’s only recourse
is to file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2