United States of America v. Paulson et al

Filing 181

ORDER Denying 174 Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/13/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No.: 15-cv-2057 AJB (NLS)

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S ORDER GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
JOHN MICHAEL PAULSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
(Doc. No. 174)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Presently before the Court is Defendants Vikki E. Paulson and Crystal Christensen’s
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) ex parte application for a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s order granting summary judgment. (Doc. No. 174.) As
explained below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ ex parte application.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2015, the United States of America instituted an action to recover
unpaid estate taxes, penalties, and interest from the Estate of Allen E. Paulson. (Doc. No.
1.) On February 20, 2018, multiple motions for summary judgment were filed. Relevant
for the purposes of this instant ex parte application is Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment against Defendants. (Doc. No. 123.) On September 7, 2018, the Court granted in
1
15-cv-2057 AJB (NLS)

1

part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 172.) On

2

October 9, 2018, Defendants filed the present matter, their ex parte application for

3

reconsideration. (Doc. No. 174.) This Order follows.

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

Pursuant to FRCP 60(b), courts may only reconsider a final order on certain

6

enumerated grounds. These grounds include: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

7

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could

8

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or

9

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

10

satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed

11

or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason

12

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6). A motion

13

made under the first three subsections of Rule 60(b) must be brought within a year, but a

14

motion made under the other subsections need only be brought within a “reasonable time

15

after entry of the order sought to be set aside.” Id.; see also United States v. Sparks, 685

16

F.2d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1982).

17

In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for

18

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

19

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

20

Cal. CivLR 7.1. The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts

21

and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such

22

prior application.” Id. Additionally, it provides that a motion for reconsideration must

23

include an affidavit or certified statement of a party or attorney “setting forth the material

24

facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when

25

and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made

26

thereon, and (3) what new and different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which

27

did not exist, or were not shown upon such prior application.” A court has discretion in

28

granting or denying a motion for reconsideration. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041,
2
15-cv-2057 AJB (NLS)

1

1046 (9th Cir. 2003); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 2001).

2
3
4

DISCUSSION
Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s Order partially granting the
Government’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 174-1 at 1.)

5

First, Defendants cite no authority to support their construction of Section 19001.

6

Nor do Defendants provide any authority that challenges the Court’s construction of

7

Section 19001. Second, Defendants simply re-allege their same arguments that they

8

presented in their Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See generally

9

Doc. No. 138.) Defendants have failed to show “what new or different facts and

10

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior

11

application.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.

12

Further, Defendants allege that the Court engaged in erroneous analysis by implying

13

legislative intent. (Doc. No. 174-1 at 8–10.) The Court was not implying legislative intent

14

in its Order. Rather, the Court was commenting on the reasonableness, or lack thereof, of

15

Defendants’ interpretation of Section 19001. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’

16

ex parte application.

17

CONCLUSION

18

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ ex parte application for

19

reconsideration. See Navajo Nation, 331 F.3d at 1046 (“Whether or not to grant

20

reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”).

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: November 13, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-cv-2057 AJB (NLS)