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)

Download PDF
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?