Ioane et al v. Santa Clara County Sheriff, Laurie Smith
Filing
6
ORDER denying 4 Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila 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”
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?