Arellano, Jr. v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 61

ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint; Denying Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Reconsideration ; And Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Interlocutory Appeal. It is ordered that plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before 3/27/2017. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/24/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,

Case No.: 14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT;
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; AND
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
APPEAL

v.
SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF;
GUERRERO, BAIL BOND;
GUERRERO, OFFICER;
VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

(ECF No. 60)

20

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Certificate of

21
22
23
24
25
26

Appealability, and Extension of Time to Amend Complaint. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 60.)
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its decision dismissing with prejudice Defendant
City of El Cajon, (ECF No. 58), or to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. (See Mot.
1–4, ECF No. 60.1) Plaintiff also moves the Court for a sixty-day extension to amend his
Complaint. (Id. at 4–5.)

27
28

1

Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
1
14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration

3

“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been

4

made to any judge and has been refused or in whole or in part . . . .” Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1).

5

The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, “new or different facts

6

and circumstances” which previously “did not exist.” Id.

7

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move “to

8

alter or amend a judgment . . . no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Such

9

reconsideration of a prior order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

10

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

11

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

12

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

13

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

14

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

15

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

16

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

17

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

18
19

ANALYSIS
I.

Motion for Reconsideration

20

Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice Defendant

21

City of El Cajon from the case. (ECF No. 58.) The bulk of Plaintiff’s arguments relate to

22

reasons why he was allegedly unable to name Defendant City of El Cajon in his original

23

Complaint. (See Mot. 2–4, ECF No. 60.) However, the Court’s Order explained that even

24

if Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant City of El Cajon were not time barred (i.e., any

25

additional tolling applied), there was nothing in Plaintiff’s original complaint to indicate

26

that the City of El Cajon knew or should have known that the action would have been

27

brought against it, and thus the amended pleading did not properly relate back to the

28

original complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). (ECF No. 58, at 12.)
2
14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

1

Plaintiff repeats the same arguments, and again argues that a reference to “American

2

Authority” in the original complaint should have put the City of El Cajon on notice for

3

purposes of Rule 15(c). (Mot. 3, ECF No. 60.) But the Court rejected that same argument

4

in its previous Order. (See ECF No. 58, at 13.) The Court sees no reason to reconsider its

5

prior Order. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

6

II.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

7

Plaintiff also requests a certificate of appealability for this portion of the Court’s

8

order, but this is not a habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Accordingly, the

9

Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for interlocutory appeal.

10

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a district judge may certify

11

an order for immediate interlocutory appeal if the judge is “of the opinion” that: (1) the

12

order “involves a controlling question of law”; (2) there is “substantial ground for

13

difference of opinion” as to the resolution of that question; and (3) “an immediate appeal

14

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See

15

Kaltwasser v. AT&T Mobility, 2011 WL 5417085, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011); In re

16

LDK Solar Sec. Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Such certification

17

should only be granted “in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal

18

might avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784,

19

785 (9th Cir. 1966).

20

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements of Section 1292(b), and the

21

Court cannot find any reason that an immediate appeal would materially advance the

22

ultimate termination of the litigation. Instead, it would further delay resolution of this case

23

and result in unnecessary trouble and expense. The Court thus finds the circumstances

24

presented in this case do not overcome the general policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals,

25

and that they do not merit § 1292(b) certification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

26

Plaintiff’s request for interlocutory appeal.

27

III.

28

Motion for Extension of Time
Plaintiff also requests sixty days from January 24, 2017 to amend his complaint
3
14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)

1

against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiff notes that he has been denied access to the law

2

library, is unable to make any copies, and thus will be unable to submit an amended

3

complaint by January 24, 2017. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

4

motion for extension of time. Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL FILE his amended complaint

5

on or before March 27, 2017.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: January 24, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
14-CV-2404 JLS (KSC)