Ryan et al v. United States of America
Filing
82
Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 75 Motion to Set Aside Judgment.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
NANCY D. RYAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Re: Dkt. No. 75
Defendant.
17
18
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside Judgment.
19
Having considered the Plaintiff’s motion, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court
20
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
21
The Court incorporates by reference the long and detailed summary of the factual and
22
procedural background as well as all of the legal and factual analysis in its April 12, 2018 Order
23
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for
24
Summary Judgment (“April 12, 2018 Order”). See ECF No. 73. On May 10, 2018, after the Court
25
issued its April 12, 2018 Order, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside
26
Judgment. See ECF No. 75 (“Mot.”). On May 24, 2018, the United States filed its Opposition.
27
ECF No. 76. Plaintiff replied on May 31, 2018. ECF No. 77.
28
1
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
1
A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may appropriately be brought under
2
either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
3
60(b); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871
4
F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868, 110 S.Ct. 192, 107 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989)).
5
The district court generally applies the same analysis under both rules, and its decision is reviewed
6
for abuse of discretion. See Fidelity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th
7
Cir. 2004) (discussing Rule 60(b)); Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1441 (discussing Rule 59(e)).
8
9
Under Rule 59(e), “reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,
or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see Snider v. Greater
12
Nev. LLC, 426 F. App’x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Rule 60(b), reconsideration is permitted
13
upon a showing of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
14
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
15
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
16
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
17
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
18
reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that
19
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under the sixth category “requires a finding of
20
‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)
21
(quoting McConnell v. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan, 759 F.2d 1401, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985)).
22
A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual
23
circumstances.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
24
This Court has previously rejected motions pursuant to Rule 59(e) and 60(b) when the “arguments
25
[were] either duplicative of arguments already previously made and carefully considered by the
26
Court in its summary judgment ruling, or [were] based on facts and argument that could have
27
been, but were not, raised during the summary judgment proceedings.” See Belinda K. v.
28
2
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
1
Baldovinos, No. 10-CV-02507-LHK, 2012 WL 3249481, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012). “[M]ere
2
disagreement with the court’s order does not provide a basis for reconsideration.” Durkee v. Ford
3
Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015) (citing
4
Calderon, 197 F.3d at 1256). In short, a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to relitigate
5
old matters,” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008).
In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration and relief from this Court’s Summary
7
Judgment Order ruling on five of her claims, asserting that the Court rendered a “clearly erroneous
8
and unjust decision with respect to” Counts I–V. Mot. at 1. “Clear error occurs when ‘the
9
reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
10
been committed.’” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing United
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A district court therefore does “not commit
12
clear error when” the question before it is “a debatable one.” See McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256.
13
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has said that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for
14
reconsideration “merely because the underlying order is erroneous, rather than clearly erroneous.”
15
Id. at 1255 n.4.
16
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to identify any material facts or dispositive legal
17
arguments that the Court manifestly failed to consider in its April 12, 2018 Order. Instead,
18
Plaintiff repeats the same arguments, evidence, and legal authority that Plaintiff raised in her
19
summary judgment and opposition briefing and that the Court carefully considered in deciding
20
both Plaintiff’s and the United States’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
21
For instance, as to Count IV, Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred by failing to consider her
22
arguments and the material facts, including that she had reasonable cause not to pay due to the
23
IRS’s actions. ECF No. 75 at 17–18. However, the Court considered and rejected these arguments
24
in its ruling on the Summary Judgment Motions. See ECF No. 73 at 28. Moreover, Plaintiff
25
challenges the Court’s reliance on its ruling on Counts I and II for its ruling on Count IV. Mot. at
26
17. However, because Count IV is premised on Counts I and II, such reliance is not erroneous.
27
Furthermore, the Court also explained at length “other significant problems with Plaintiff’s
28
3
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
1
reasonable cause claim” in its April 12, 2018 Order. See ECF No. 73 at 28–31. Plaintiff’s
2
arguments as to these other problems with Count IV equally lack merit. Thus, Plaintiff fails to
3
show that the Court did not consider material facts and dispositive arguments as to Count IV.
4
Plaintiff also repeats the same evidence that Plaintiff already raised in her summary
5
judgment briefing and that the Court already considered. For example, as to Count V, Plaintiff
6
states that “[t]he Court clearly erred in disregarding [Plaintiff’s] evidence that the IRS specifically
7
represented to her and her husband that no additional penalties would be imposed.” See Mot. at
8
20–21. But this was already before the Court and was considered by the Court in its determination
9
to grant summary judgment in favor of the United States on Count V. The Court explicitly
declined to consider extrinsic evidence, but also held that “even if it was appropriate to consider
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
extrinsic evidence to determine the scope of the closing agreement, such evidence would not
12
benefit Plaintiff.” See ECF No. 73 at 35.
13
Plaintiff also re-raises interpretation of case law that was already considered. For example,
14
in her argument for reconsideration of Count I, Plaintiff reasserts that Alessio Azzari, Inc. v. C.I.R.,
15
is relevant and helpful to her case. See Mot. at 8 (citing 136 T.C. 178 (2011)). But the Court
16
already considered Plaintiff’s reliance on that case in its April 12, 2018 Order and determined the
17
case was inapposite. ECF No. 73 at 18 n.1; see also McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256 (stating that a
18
district court does “not commit clear error when” the question before it is “a debatable one.”).
19
Finally, Plaintiff argues that in its determination to grant summary judgment in favor of the
20
United States on Count I, the Court should have considered IRC § 6325(d)(1) instead of
21
§ 6325(d)(2) to determine whether subordination is permitted. In particular, Plaintiff argues she
22
relied upon (d)(1) and that (d)(1) requires less information than (d)(2), so Plaintiff could have
23
more easily met the conditions of (d)(1). Mot. at 2–4. Plaintiff’s argument, however, does not
24
provide sufficient grounds for granting the motion for reconsideration. As the April 12, 2018
25
Order stated, the IRS has tremendous discretion to approve or deny a lien subordination
26
application pursuant to IRC § 6325(d), regardless of subsection. See ECF No. 73 at 17–18 (citing
27
Morris v. C.I.R., 2016 WL 695385, at *7 (T.C. Feb. 4, 2016)). Given this, the Court concluded
28
4
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
1
that even if the conditions for subordination were fully met (pursuant to IRC § 6325(d)), the IRS
2
was still not required to approve the Ryans’ lien subordination application, “and thus the IRS’s
3
failure to approve the application cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion.” See id.
4
The April 12, 2018 Order exhaustively analyzed all of Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments
5
and provided multiple bases for each of its summary judgment rulings. In the instant motion,
6
Plaintiff merely repeats the same arguments she raised in the summary judgment briefing, but
7
hopes for a different result. In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court manifestly failed to
8
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments, nor has Plaintiff identified any other reason
9
that her motion for reconsideration should be granted.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside
Judgment is DENIED. The case remains closed.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
17
Dated: September 18, 2018
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 16-CV-00164-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
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?