Heilman v. Silva et al

Filing 392

ORDER: (1) Denying Motion for reconsideration; (2) Denying Motion to sever; and (3) Granting Parties' motion to Voluntarily Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 387 , 391 . Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/25/2018. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
CDCR #H-76785,

15

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
(2) DENYING MOTION TO SEVER;
AND (3) GRANTING PARTIES’
MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY
DISMISS

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

v.
A. SILVA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

(ECF Nos. 387, 391)

18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas John Heilman’s Motion for

20

Reconsideration. (“MTN,” ECF No. 391.) Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider its

21

rulings on three separate Motions: Motion to Stay the Proceedings or Vacate Settlement

22

(“Motion to Vacate,” ECF No. 382); Motion for Copies of Court Documents (“Motion for

23

Documents,” ECF No. 366); and David Zugman’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,

24

(“Motion to Withdraw,” ECF No. 383). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion

25

to Sever (ECF No. 387). After considering Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court

26

rules as follows.

27

///

28

///
1
13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

1

BACKGROUND

2

This motion comes before the Court with a long history, the facts of which have been

3

recited in several recent Orders by this Court. (See ECF Nos. 373, 389.) Relevant to this

4

Order are the procedural events following the settlement agreement agreed to by the parties

5

on April 12, 2018. Shortly after agreeing to settle the case, Plaintiff requested this Court

6

to vacate that settlement. (See ECF No. 362.) After reviewing Plaintiff’s claims, the Court

7

determined that Plaintiff entered into a valid settlement agreement to release his claims in

8

four civil cases, and that no good cause existed to vacate the settlement agreement. (ECF

9

No. 373.)

10

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Reconsider, alleging he entered into the agreement

11

under duress, and claiming ineffective counsel. (See ECF No. 382.) Before the Court ruled

12

on that motion, however, Plaintiff filed a notice that he had signed the settlement

13

agreement, but requested the Court hold the signed settlement agreement in abeyance until

14

the Court ruled on the pending motion for reconsideration. (See ECF No. 385, at 3.)

15

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Sever his consolidated claims. (ECF No. 387.) Without

16

ruling on the Motion to Sever, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, and

17

accepted the signed settlement agreement. (See ECF No. 388.) Finally, Plaintiff filed the

18

current Motion, asking the court to rule on his Motion to Sever, to reconsider its rulings on

19

his Motion for Documents and the Motion to Withdraw, and to reconsider the Motion to

20

Vacate a second time.

21

LEGAL STANDARD

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or

23

amend its judgment. In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for

24

reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or

25

other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Civ.

26

L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or

27

different facts and circumstances which previously did not exist. Id.

28

///
2
13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

1

“A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly

2

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

3

controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

4

marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en

5

banc)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

6

of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

7

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for

8

reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris,

9

331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). A party may

10

not raise new arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them

11

earlier. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d

12

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

13
14

ANALYSIS
I.

Motion to Vacate Settlement

15

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider three previous orders: Motion to Vacate,

16

Motion for Copies, and Motion to Withdraw. The Court will first consider the Motion to

17

Vacate.

18

Before ruling on the current motion, a brief summary of the Court’s prior Order

19

denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Settlement is instructive. The Court first determined

20

that Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid settlement agreement, which the parties

21

entered into on the record before Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean in the Eastern District

22

of California. (ECF No. 388 at 3–5.) Next, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s various

23

allegations concerning his treatment before signing the settlement agreement were

24

unsubstantiated and did not overcome his objective assent to the settlement. (Id. at 6–7.)

25

The Court therefore denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, and accepted the settlement

26

agreement. (Id. at 7.)

27

Plaintiff raises no new allegations in the current motion. (See generally MTN.)

28

Instead, Plaintiff simply asks the Court again to reconsider its ruling on the Motion Vacate.
3
13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

1

(Id. at 2.) The arguments Plaintiff raised in his prior Motion have been considered, and

2

rejected by this Court already. (See ECF 388.) Without being presented with any “newly

3

discovered evidence,” a showing where the Court “committed clear error,” an “intervening

4

change in the controlling law,” or any other “highly unusual circumstances,” this Court

5

finds no reason to grant such an “extraordinary remedy.” See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.

6

3d at 890. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

7

regarding the Motion to Vacate.

8

II.

Motion for Documents and Motion to Withdraw

9

The Court now turns to the remaining motions Plaintiff has asked the Court to

10

reconsider, the Motion for Documents and Motion to Withdraw. Plaintiff fails to raise any

11

arguments as to why the previous rulings were incorrect, and presents the Court with no

12

new facts in support of his request to reconsider either the Motion for Copies or the Motion

13

to Withdraw. (See generally MTN.) Plaintiff instead seems to rely on the arguments and

14

facts previously raised and already considered. As stated in the previous Orders, the record

15

contains ample evidence to support the Court’s decisions to deny the Motion for Copies

16

and to grant the Motion to Withdraw. (See ECF Nos. 373 at 8; 389 at 3.)

17

Furthermore, denial of the Motion to Vacate and the acceptance of the settlement

18

agreement effectively ends this litigation. The only thing remaining for this Court is to

19

dismiss the cases in accordance with the agreement, making these motions now moot.

20

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding the

21

Motion for Documents and the Motion to Withdraw.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for

24

Reconsideration, (ECF No. 391). On the record, Defendants approved the settlement

25

agreement, and agreed to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has signed

26

and filed the voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 385.) The Court therefore GRANTS the

27

voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, and ORDERS the clerk to close

28
4
13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)

1

the cases which are in front of this Court:1 Heilman v. Silva, et al., Case No. 13-CV-2984

2

JLS (AGS); and Heilman v. J. Cook, et al., Case No. 3:14-CV-01412-JLS-(AGS). Because

3

these cases are now dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever the Cook and Silva cases is

4

DENIED as moot.

5

The parties will carry out the terms of the settlement agreement as memorialized in

6

writing and orally agreed upon on the record. (ECF Nos. 364, 385.) This Court will retain

7

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should either party fail to comply with the terms of

8

this settlement.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also agreed to dismiss several cases not before this Court: Heilman v. Sanchez, et al., Case No.
2:10-CV-1120 JAM (DB); Heilman v. Dillen, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-6298 JVS (FFM); and Heilman v.
Furster, et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-9987 JVS (FFM).
5
13-CV-2984 JLS (AGS)