Lopez et al v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/10/2017. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

INES LOPEZ, et al.,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION [Doc.
16] FOR RECONSIDERATION

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s

18

Order (the “Order” [Doc. 15]) denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The

19

parties are aware of the factual background of this case, which was addressed in the

20

Order. Of relevance to the present motion, the Court’s Order held that (1) Plaintiffs

21

adequately alleged that municipal Defendants were on notice of a pattern of similar

22

constitutional violations and (2) Decedent’s absent children are not necessary parties for

23

purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. (See Order.) Defendants seek reconsideration of these

24

two holdings. (See Mot. [Doc. 16].)

25

A district court has the power to reconsider and amend a previous order. See Fed.

26

R. Civ P. 59(e). However, a district court generally should not grant a motion for

27

reconsideration unless (1) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, (2) there

28
1
3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

1

is an intervening change in the controlling law or (3) the original ruling was clearly

2

erroneous. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants’ first argument is that it was clear error for the Court to conclude that

3
4

Plaintiff had accurately alleged a “pattern of similar constitutional violations” because

5

Plaintiffs have not alleged that any similar previous constitutional violations led to

6

judgments. In doing so, Defendants rehash the exact same arguments the Court already

7

gave full consideration to in its previous Order. (See Order 10:5–20.)
The Court still finds Defendants’ argument unpersuasive. To wit, from the fact

8
9

that allegations of a “pattern of constitutional violations”1 are necessary to sustain a cause

10

of action for municipal liability based on a failure to train, it does not follow that the

11

individual constitutional violations that make up said pattern must have triggered

12

judgments in previous judicial proceedings. More concisely, an action that violates the

13

Constitution is not any less unconstitutional because it has not been the subject of a

14

previous lawsuit. See Nesmith v. Cnty. of San Diego, No 15-cv-629-JLS, Slip. Op. at 2–5

15

(S.D. Cal. March 30, 2017) (same holding).

16

Next, Defendants argue that the Court committed clear error in concluding that the

17

Decedent’s absent children are not required parties for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.

18

Defendants contend the absent children are required because, if they are not joined,

19

Defendants could be subject to inconsistent adjudications on some of Plaintiffs’ claims—

20

for example: by winning this case and losing a future case brought by a currently absent

21

child alleging the same claims and facts.

22
23

The problem with this argument is that it complains of inconsistent adjudications
rather than inconsistent obligations. The Ninth Circuit has explained that
[i]nconsistent obligations” are not ... the same as inconsistent adjudications
or results. Inconsistent obligations occur when a party is unable to comply
with one court's order without breaching another court's order concerning the
same incident. Inconsistent adjudications or results, by contrast, occur when

24
25
26
27
28

1

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011).
2
3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

1
2
3
4
5
6

a defendant successfully defends a claim in one forum, yet loses on another
claim arising from the same incident in another forum.
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty., 547 F.3d 962, 976 (9th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Delgado v. Plaza Las Americas, Inc., 139 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998).
Unlike the possibility of inconsistent obligations, the mere possibility of inconsistent
adjudications does not render an absent party necessary. Id. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: April 10, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA