Keating et al v. Jastremski et al
Filing
501
ORDER on 487 and 490 Motion to alter or amend Judgment. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/8/2021. (jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEATING et al.,
12
Case No.: 3:15-cv-57-L-AGS
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
JASTREMSKI et al.,
15
ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT (DOC. NO.
487 AND 490).
Defendants.
16
17
Pending before the Court is Counter-Defendant Dalton’s motion to alter or amend
18
the default judgment. (Doc. No. 487). Counter-Defendant Silvers sought to join the
19
motion. (Doc. No. 490). Counterclaimant The Retirement Group LLC (“TRG”) opposed.
20
(Doc. Nos. 491-492). Counter-Defendants responded. (Doc. No. 496). The Court decides
21
the matter on the papers submitted without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the
22
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion.
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows courts to reconsider or amend prior
24
orders. The relief sought under that Rule is “an extraordinary remedy.” Enters. v. Estate
25
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation
26
omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate under limited circumstances: (1) the court is
27
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or made an
28
1
3:15-cv-57-L-AGS
1
initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in
2
controlling law. Id.; Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
Rule 59(e) “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first
4
time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters,
5
229 F.3d at 890 (emphasis original). “The overwhelming weight of authority is that the
6
failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition does not turn the late filed
7
documents into newly discovered evidence.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
8
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
9
Here, Dalton’s motion is not based on new evidence. Dalton relies on documents
10
and records that were in his possession when he filed the opposition to TRG’s motion for
11
default judgment. (ECF 487). Dalton also argues the Court erred in its determination as to
12
how to apportion the attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. But he could have raised those
13
arguments in his opposition.1 And Dalton failed to show the Court made clear error or the
14
initial decision was manifestly unjust. Dalton merely seeks to relitigate issues. For these
15
reasons, the Court DENIES Dalton’s motion. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.
16
Silvers likewise seeks to alter or amend the default judgment. (Doc. No. 490).
17
However, he filed his motion more than 28 days after the judgment. (Doc. Nos. 481 and
18
490). The motion is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). And the Court cannot
19
grant an extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Regardless, he does not meet the standard as
20
his arguments could have been (or were) raised in his opposition to the motion for default
21
judgment. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890.
22
Silvers also seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). (Doc. No.
23
490). Silvers must show he was prevented “from fully and fairly presenting the case.” In
24
re M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1987); Pac. & Arctic Ry. and
25
26
27
28
1
In the opposition, Dalton argued the Court should apportion the requested attorneys’ fees. The Court
agreed. (See Doc. No. 481, Order on Motion for Default Judgment). But Dalton did not assert how the
fees should be apportioned. The Court nevertheless determined the amount to award based on the
claims, parties, and procedural history of the case. Id.
2
3:15-cv-57-L-AGS
1
Navigation Co. v. United Transp. Union, 952 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule
2
60(b)(3) “requires that fraud . . . not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the
3
proceedings.”) But he had the opportunity to present his case throughout this action,
4
including in opposing TRG’s motion for default judgment. There is also no manifest
5
injustice. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2006)
6
(“judgments are not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Rule is used
7
sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only
8
where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent
9
or correct an erroneous judgment.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
10
Court therefore DENIES Silvers’ motion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254,
11
1259-1260 (9th Cir. 2004).
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2021
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:15-cv-57-L-AGS
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?