Padgett et al v. City of Monte Sereno et al

Filing 1207

Order Denying 1206 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on October 24, 2019.(ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JOSEPH PADGETT, et al.,

Case No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
10
11

BRIAN LOVENTHAL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1206

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration for this Court’s October 7, 2019

14

Order, where the Court granted an award of attorney fees and costs directly to the law firms of

15

Kallis & Associates and Bustamante & Gagliasso. Order Granting Award of Fees and Costs

16

(“Order”), Dkt. 1201. He argues this Court failed to consider “material facts or dispositive legal

17

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” N.D. Cal. Civ.

18

L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiff grounds his argument in this Court’s “failure” to properly understand

19

California issue preclusion and contract invalidity law. Motion for Leave to File Motion for

20

Reconsideration (“Mot.”) at 3–5, Dkt. 1206. Plaintiff feels this Court has “travel[ed] to the Land

21

of Make Believe” in its findings. Mot. at 4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) (allowing the court,

22

on its own initiative, to order a party to explain why it has not violated this Rule by presenting

23

arguments unsupported by existing law).

24

First, to the extent issue or claim preclusion even applies, it is irrelevant to this proceeding.

25

As this Court explained in its Order, when fees were granted in 2015, there was a valid contractual

26

provision justifying the award of fees to counsel, rather than to Plaintiff. Order at 6. To the extent

27

Plaintiff misunderstands this Court’s analysis, the essential point can be summed up to this—in

28

Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1

1

2015, when this Court first awarded fees, a valid contractual provision (see below for why the

2

provision was valid) existed, meaning the fees should have always gone directly to the Law Firms.

3

See id. at 6 n.4. Accordingly, res judicata is irrelevant to this proceeding as no action was initiated

4

in state court at this time.

5

Second, pursuant to basic contractual principles, which the Court urges counsel to

6

familiarize himself with, a “voidable” contract is operative until it is voided “at the option of the

7

impaired party.” CLAUDE D. ROHWER, CONTRACTS IN A NUTSHELL, at § 5.2 (8th ed. 2017). In

8

contrast, a “void” contract, never has any legal effect—it is as if no contract ever existed. Id.

9

§ 5.9. Here, as the Court discussed in its opinion, the contract, pursuant to established California
law, was “voidable.” Order at 5. Thus, until Plaintiff voided the contract in 2017, it was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

operative. Because 2015 was two years before 2017, the contract was operative when this Court

12

issued its first order.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Accordingly, because the Court did not fail to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2