Hooper v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 421

ORDER Denying 400 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/2/2020. (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DEBORAH HOOPER,

Case No.: 07cv1647-JAH-KSC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 400)

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al,
Defendant.

13

INTRODUCTION

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants County of San Diego and Kirk Terrell

16

(“Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration. The motion is fully briefed. Based upon the

17

pleading and oral arguments on the matter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court

18

DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
BACKGROUND

19
20

On January 8, 2015, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for a new

21

trial. See Doc. No. 169. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision,

22

which was subsequently denied on May 19, 2015. See Doc. No. 184. Defendants filed the

23

instant motion for reconsideration on May 1, 2020. See Doc. No. 400. Therein, Defendants

24

argue that the clear weight of the evidence does not support a Plaintiff’s verdict, as

25

demonstrated by the two mistrials that followed the 2013 jury verdict in favor of

26

Defendants.

27

///

28

///
1
07cv1647-JAH-KSC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DISCUSSION
1. Legal Standard
Under Rule 54(b),
any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not
end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties'
rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b).
In the Southern District of California, motions for reconsideration are also governed
by Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). The rule requires that for any motion for reconsideration,
it shall be the continuing duty of each party and attorney seeking such relief
to present to the judge … an affidavit of a party or witness or certified
statement of an attorney setting forth the material facts and circumstances
surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what
judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made
thereon, and (3) what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to
exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.

16
17

Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1).

18

2. Analysis

19

For the second time, Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order

20

granting Plaintiff a new trial. Reconsideration is not a mechanism for the parties “to ask

21

the court to rethink what the court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.”

22

United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Rather,

23

reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is to be used “sparingly.” Kona Enters.

24

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “

25

The local civil rules require a motion for reconsideration be filed within 28-days

26

after entry of the ruling. L. Civ. R. 7.1.i.2 (“Except as may be allowed under Rules 59 and

27

60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any motion or application for reconsideration

28

must be filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of the ruling order or judgment sought
2
07cv1647-JAH-KSC

1

to be reconsidered.” (emphasis added)). The local civil rules do not provide a timing

2

exception under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 as they do for Rules 59 and 60. Here,

3

the Order granting Plaintiff a new trial was filed in January 2015 and the Order Denying

4

Reconsideration in May 2015—now, over five years later Defendants seek another

5

reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. Defendants’ motion falls well beyond the

6

deadlines imposed by Local Rule 7.1(i)(2). Further, the Court has previously reconsidered

7

its prior order granting Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. As such, the Court declines to

8

exercise its inherent power to reconsider the order.

9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: September 2, 2020

15
16
17

_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
07cv1647-JAH-KSC