Romero et al v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

Filing 127

ORDER denying 99 Motion to Amend/Correct Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/9/2018. (sjt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN ROMERO, FRANK
TISCARENO, and KENNETH
ELLIOT,

12
v.

13
14

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 16cv1283 JM (MDD)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) moves to alter or amend this

18 court’s April 12, 2018 Order Denying Motion for Class Certification (“Order”), without
19 prejudice. Securus seeks to correct perceived factual discrepancies in the Order and
20 to deny the motion for class certification with prejudice. Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Frank
21 Tiscareno, and Kenneth Elliot (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion to amend. Pursuant to
22 L.R. 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters presented appropriate for resolution without
23 oral argument.1
24

Reconsideration of an earlier court order is generally appropriate “if the district

25 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the
26 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
27 controlling law. . . There may also be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting
28
1

The court incorporates the prior Order.
-1-

16cv1283

1 reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. AC and S, Inc.,
2 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The court
3 notes that Plaintiffs have timely refiled their motion for class certification within the
4 time period set forth in the Order, with a hearing date of August 20, 2018. At that time,
5 Securus may respond to any perceived factual discrepancies. Accordingly, the court
6 concludes that Securus fails to show any newly discovered evidence, clear error, or
7 intervening change in controlling law that warrants reconsideration of the Order.
8

In sum, the motion to alter or amend the Order is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATED: August 9, 2018
11

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge

12
13

cc:

All parties

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

16cv1283