Ioane, et al v. County of Santa Clar, et al

Filing 206

ORDER denying 4 Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/5/2016. (Filed in Case No. 5:16-mc-80038-EJD) (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)(ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

IN RE:

Case No. 5:16-mc-80038-EJD

9

MICHAEL IOANE, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
“NEW TRIAL/RECONSIDERATION”

Movants.

10

Re: Dkt. No. 4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

MICHAEL AND SHELLEY IOANE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

14
v.
15
16

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF,
LAURIE SMITH,

17

Defendant.

18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
In 2000, Michael Ioane and Shelly Ioane, also known as Shelly Olson (collectively,

20

“Movants”), were found to be vexatious litigants and since then have been subject to identical

21

prefiling orders that preclude them from filing “any lawsuits unless a judge of this district

22

expressly grants permission to do so.” Dkt. No. 171, Case No. 5:99-cv-21119-SW. On February

23

17, 2016, Movants sought to dissolve the prefiling orders through a motion pursuant to Federal

24

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). Dkt. No. 1. The motion was referred to the undersigned for

25

general duty review, and was denied. Dkt. No. 3.

26

Presently before the court is a “motion for new trial/reconsideration,” which was filed by

27

Movants pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. No. 4. The court has carefully

28

1
Case No.: 5:16-mc-80038-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR “NEW TRIAL/RECONSIDERATION”

1

reviewed this motion in conjunction with its prior ruling, and finds that it presents no viable basis

2

for relief. Accordingly, the motion will be denied for the reasons that follow.

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
“In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:

4
5

(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment

6

rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable

7

evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is

8

justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101,

9

1111 (9th Cir. 2011).
Relief under Rule 59(e) is “extraordinary” and “should be used sparingly.” McDowell v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999); Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir.

12

2001) (explaining that a party must overcome a “high hurdle” to obtain relief under Rule 59(e)

13

since only “highly unusual circumstances” will justify its application).

14

III.

DISCUSSION

15

Movants argue they are entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) because (1) attorneys in two

16

different civil cases have raised their vexatious litigant designation, both before and after their

17

motion to dissolve the prefiling orders was filed, and (2) the court committed “clear error” when it

18

determined that Movants could not challenge the scope of the prefiling orders under Rule 60(b)(5).

19

These arguments are without merit.

20

To begin, though Movants argue otherwise, the court is not persuaded that the documents

21

submitted along with this motion qualify as “newly discovered evidence” or “previously

22

unavailable evidence.” This is because “the assessment of newness turns on the date of the court’s

23

dispositive order, not on the date when the motions or briefs are filed.” Hecker v. Deere & Co.,

24

556 F.3d 575, 590 (7th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court observes that while “Rule 59(e) permits a

25

court to alter or amend a judgment,” it “‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise

26

arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon

27

Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n. 5 (2008).

28

2
Case No.: 5:16-mc-80038-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR “NEW TRIAL/RECONSIDERATION”

1

Here, the transcripts and orders that Movants have now produced each predate this court’s

2

order denying the Rule 60(b)(5) motion, and Plaintiffs did not convincingly explain why the

3

documents could not have been produced earlier. Movants do not, for example, claim they were

4

previously unaware of the hearings that occurred in state court on January 6th and January 15,

5

2016, or of the orders that ensued, at the time they filed the motion to dissolve on February 17,

6

2016. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The

7

overwhelming weight of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or

8

opposition does not turn the late filed documents into ‘newly discovered evidence.’”).

9

Similarly, Movants provide no reason why they did not previously submit to this court the
amended pretrial statement filed in the Eastern District of California on May 3, 2016, if they

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

believed such document was pivotal to their argument. They certainly could have, given the order

12

on their Rule 60(b)(5) motion was filed over a month later. Hecker, 556 F.3d at 590 (affirming

13

denial of Rule 59(e) motion based on newly discovered evidence because “if this evidence was so

14

important to their case, plaintiffs should have alerted the district court to their discovery and asked

15

for some appropriate way to bring it to the court’s attention,” and stating “[t]here was no reason to

16

sit on potentially relevant evidence and allow the court to go forward with its decision”). In any

17

event, even if the court were to consider the content of the pretrial statement, it would not find that

18

the document itself actually supports the contention originally made by Movants: that the prefiling

19

orders have become “substantially more onerous” because they have “undue influence on the

20

thinking of others in the legal system once it is introduced into evidence.” If anything, the

21

statement only signifies the defendants’ intention to move in limine for leave to admit the prefiling

22

orders at trial. It does not establish that that those orders have been admitted into evidence, or that

23

they persuaded the district judge or a jury to take any particular action against Movants.

24

Furthermore, Movants have not met their burden to show that a “manifest error” of law

25

was made in the order addressing their Rule 60(b)(5) motion. Relying on SEC v. Coldicutt, 258

26

F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir. 2001), the court determined that Movants’ argument concerning the scope

27

of the prefiling orders did not “demonstrate that the orders have become substantially more

28

3
Case No.: 5:16-mc-80038-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR “NEW TRIAL/RECONSIDERATION”

onerous or unworkable, or are detrimental to the public interest,” and found that Movants failed to

2

show that compliance with the prefiling review requirement had become “legally impermissible.”

3

The court also noted that the framing of the particular challenge was “better suited to a direct

4

appeal from the prefiling orders,” rather than a motion under Rule 60(b)(5). This analysis does not

5

embody a “‘wholesale disregard [of], misapplication [of], or failure to recognize controlling

6

precedent,’” since, under these circumstances, the controlling precedent is that governing the

7

application of Rule 60(b)(5). Benham v. Sequoia Equities, Inc., No. CV 13-00205, 2013 U.S.

8

Dist. LEXIS 108015, at *6, 2013 WL 3872185 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) (quoting Ahmed v.

9

Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004)). Unlike the plaintiff in DeLong v. Hennessey, 912

10

F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) - a case Movants relied on before and do so again here - Movants did

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

not appeal from the vexatious litigant designations or the prefiling orders when they were issued,

12

and this court is not sitting as a court of review with respect to those findings or orders. See Horne

13

v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (“Rule 60(b)(5) may not be used to challenge the legal

14

conclusions on which a prior judgment or order rests . . . .”). As such, the court confined the

15

analysis to the precise legal issue presented by the motion that Movants submitted.
In sum, Movants have not presented a basis for the extraordinary relief they seek. For that

16
17

reason, their Rule 59(e) motion will be denied.

18

IV.

19

ORDER
The “motion for new trial/reconsideration” (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

4
Case No.: 5:16-mc-80038-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR “NEW TRIAL/RECONSIDERATION”