Shalaby v. Bernzomatic et al
Filing
168
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Court's Order (Doc. No. 167 ). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/29/2021. (jrm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDREW SHALABY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No.: 3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND COURT’S
ORDER
v.
BERNZOMATIC, et al.,
Defendants.
15
(Doc. No. 167)
16
17
Andrew Shalaby (“Plaintiff”) seeks to file a “motion to amend sanction order, Doc.
18
No. 161, re omitted Rule 11 argument” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
19
(“Rule 59”). The Court will treat this Rule 59 motion as a motion for reconsideration. For
20
the reasons detailed below, the motion is DENIED. 1
21
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
22
Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted. See
23
generally Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.
24
1981). “[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of
25
26
27
28
1
Although Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s orders before he filed the instant motion,
the Ninth Circuit has stated that courts retain jurisdiction to rule on a Rule 59 motion even though an
appeal has been previously filed. See Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1988).
1
3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB
1
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or
2
prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364,
3
369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713,
4
715 (9th Cir. 1970)). Courts construing Rule 59(e) have noted that a motion to reconsider
5
is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously
6
presented, or to present “contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged
7
judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (citing
8
cases). These holdings “reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling
9
resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Id.
10
II.
DISCUSSION
11
A.
12
Plaintiff has not provided any adequate ground for reconsideration. As the basis for
13
his Rule 59 motion, Plaintiff states, “[t]his Court’s January 13, 2021 order inadvertently
14
overlooked Plaintiff’s argument that sanctions may not be sought without complying with
15
the safe harbor requirements of Rule 11.” (Doc. No. 167 at 3.) Plaintiff’s position is yet
16
another attempt to reargue the merits of whether sanctions are appropriate, even though
17
that issue has already been decided by the Court. While Plaintiff believes the Court’s
18
January 13, 2021 order failed to address Plaintiff’s argument regarding Rule 11’s safe
19
harbor provision, the purpose of the January 13, 2021 order was exclusively to decide the
20
amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to Defendant. Indeed, recognizing that Plaintiff’s
21
Rule 11 argument had already been previously raised and rejected, the Court remarked in
22
the January 13, 2021 order, “the majority of Plaintiff’s opposition is an attempt to reargue
23
points already ruled upon by the Court on multiple occasions.” (Doc. No. 161 at 2.) As
24
such, the Court did not need to address Plaintiff’s Rule 11 safe harbor argument, which
25
went to the merits of whether sanctions were warranted; the Court only needed to address
26
the amount of attorneys’ fees Defendant could recover.
Motion for Reconsideration
27
The separate question of whether sanctions were warranted in the first instance was
28
decided in the Court’s August 15, 2019 order granting sanctions, wherein the Court clearly
2
3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB
1
stated, “[c]ourts have the inherent power to sanction parties that willfully disobey a court
2
order.” (Doc. No. 131 at 3 (citing Broemer v. U.S., No. CV 01-04340 MMM (RZx), 2002
3
WL 3644940, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2002)). Pursuant to this inherent power—and with
4
no mention of Rule 11—the Court held on August 15, 2019 that Plaintiff had defied the
5
Court’s prefiling order, and granted monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant in the form
6
of reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 131 at 3.) The Court then directed Defendant to
7
file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id.) After review of Defendant’s motion, the
8
Court determined Defendant failed to provide any details that would allow the Court to
9
assess whether the requested attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonable. (Doc. No. 148 at
10
4–5.) Accordingly, the Court requested supplemental briefing detailing Defendant’s fees.
11
(Id.) The Court also permitted Plaintiff to respond to the supplemental briefing. (Id.) Now,
12
Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to address an argument contained in this response. But
13
the Court squarely stated it was not entertaining arguments already rejected. (Doc. No. 161
14
at 2.) The Court’s grant of a response was not an invitation for Plaintiff to reargue whether
15
sanctions were appropriate under Rule 11, as that issue had already been decided.
16
In sum, Plaintiff has not established an “intervening change of controlling law, the
17
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
18
injustice” required for reconsideration. See Hodel, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5. Plaintiff’s motion
19
is hereby DENIED.
20
B.
21
In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a reduction of sanctions in the event the Court
22
denies the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 167 at 5.) Plaintiff states that during the
23
past year, his mother fell permanently ill and Plaintiff “now has to pay for her care and
24
housing. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on Shalaby financially.
25
For this reason, Shalaby is respectfully requesting that the Court reduce the sanction
26
amount to $14,000 and afford me until 2/1/2022 to pay the full amount.” (Id.) While the
27
Court is sympathetic to these unexpected circumstances, Plaintiff’s request is denied
28
because he has not sufficiently established financial hardship. In particular, Plaintiff’s
3
Request for Reduction of Sanctions
3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB
1
declaration filed in support of this request is wholly unsupported by any financial records
2
or documentary evidence showing expenses incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s unanticipated
3
hardship or inability to pay. Should Plaintiff renew this argument in opposition to
4
Defendant’s motion for appellate cost bond, Plaintiff must provide documentary proof
5
demonstrating financial hardship. Such financial records may be lodged with the Court for
6
in-camera review.
7
III.
8
9
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED,
and Plaintiff’s request for a reduction of sanctions is DENIED. (Doc. No. 167.)
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2021
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:11-cv-00068-AJB-DHB
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?