The United States of America v. Mednansky et al

Filing 54

ORDER Denying Successive Motion for Reconsideration 53 . No further applications or motions seeking reconsideration of these issues are to be submitted for filing. If they are submitted, they will be summarily rejected and none will be entertained. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/10/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

CASE NO. 10cv1307-LAB (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING SUCCESSIVE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

vs.
13
14

DAVID MEDNANSKY, MARTINE
MEDNANSKY, individually,

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

On April 20, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the Mednanskys’ motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s previous orders, finding the motion to be baseless.

20

On May 4, the Court accepted by discrepancy order a successive motion for

21

reconsideration even though the motion did not comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1). The

22

new motion questions the Court’s April 20 order. This new motion in large part concerns itself

23

with formalities that the Court summarily resolved in the Mednanskys’ favor, such as whether

24

the United States’ counsel needed to be served, or whether the earlier motion should have

25

been filed as a noticed motion or whether it could be accepted for filling as an ex parte

26

application. Reconsidering those issues would not affect the outcome.

27

The Mednanskys also argue that the United States was required to brief the issues

28

before the Court could properly rule on it. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, courts have

-1-

10cv1307

1

the inherent power to rule summarily deny baseless or frivolous motions. See, e.g., Mallard

2

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989) (even in the absence of

3

a statutory provision, courts may sua sponte deny frivolous or malicious requests for relief).

4

See also, e.g., United States v. Stuler, 396 Fed. Appx 798, 801 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding

5

district court acted appropriately in denying motion as frivolous); United States v. Molen,

6

2011 WL 3847204, 2011 WL 3847204, slip op. at *1 (E.D.Cal., Aug. 30, 2011) (cautioning

7

parties that baseless objections to court’s orders would be summarily denied). Second, the

8

motion attacked the Court’s jurisdiction, and the Court may properly examine its own

9

jurisdiction regardless of any motion or briefing from the parties. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City

10

of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230–31 (1990) (although neither party had raised jurisdictional

11

issue, Court was required to examine it).

12

The Mednanskys’ successive motion for reconsideration raises a series of other

13

arguments. Even if any of these arguments were meritorious or had some reasonable basis,

14

they could have been raised in the first motion. See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of

15

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (although Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) permits a court to

16

reconsider and amend a previous order, such a motion “may not be used to raise arguments

17

or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier

18

in the litigation”). Absent unusual circumstances such as newly-discovered evidence,

19

manifest error, or a change in controlling law, motions for reconsideration are disfavored,

20

Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004), and successive motions even more so.

21

This successive motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. No further applications or

22

motions seeking reconsideration of these issues are to be submitted for filing. If they are

23

submitted, they will be summarily rejected and none will be entertained.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: May 10, 2012
26
27
28

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
-2-

10cv1307