Linlor v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 105

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Final Order (ECF No. 98 ) is Denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/01/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JAMES LINLOR,

Case No.: 17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER

CHASE BANKCARD
SERVICES, INC. and CHASE
BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,

14
15

Defendants.

16
17

HAYES, Judge:

18
19
20

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Final Order (ECF No. 98).
I.

Background

21

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff James Linlor filed the First Amended Complaint (ECF

22

No. 22) (the “FAC”). The FAC brings a claim against Defendants Chase Bankcard

23

Services, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

24

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (ECF No. 22 at 9).

25

On May 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70).

26

On August 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF

27

No. 90). On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

28

Final Order. (ECF No. 98). On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
1
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC

1

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 97). On September 24, 2018, Defendant

2

filed Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 104).

3

II.

Contentions of the Parties

4

Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its August 7, 2018 Order granting

5

summary judgment in favor of Defendants (ECF No. 90) “in light of evidence apparently

6

not considered by the Court.” (ECF No. 98 at 3). In support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

7

Reconsideration, Plaintiff submits three “attestations.” (ECF No. 98-2). Each attestation

8

states “[t]his attestation is not new information.” (ECF No. 98-2 at 2, 6, 10). Plaintiff

9

additionally submits approximately 122 pages of material exchanged by the parties during

10

discovery. (ECF No. 98-2 at 14–136). Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Motion must

11

be denied because “there are no new facts, the Court’s decision was sound and not in clear

12

error, and there has been no change in controlling law.” (ECF No. 104 at 6).

13

III.

Legal Standard

14

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

15

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

16

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted,

17

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

18

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

19

controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d

20

873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

21

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “A motion for reconsideration ‘may

22

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

23

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Id. at 880 (quoting Kona, 229 F.3d

24

at 890). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of

25

the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation,

26

331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

27
28
2
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC

1

IV.

Ruling of the Court

2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not identify any newly discovered

3

evidence, or any intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff asserts that the Court

4

erred by not “consider[ing] evidence in the ‘best light’ in favor of the non-moving party”

5

(ECF No. 98 at 3) and that the Court erred by not considering Plaintiff’s August 3, 2018

6

“updated response to Defendants’ interrogatories” in its August 7, 2018 Order granting

7

summary judgment. (ECF No. 98 at 5). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish

8

that the Court committed “clear error” in its August 7, 2018 Order. Plaintiff has not

9

established that this case presents “highly unusual circumstances” warranting

10

reconsideration of the Court’s August 7, 2018 Order. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d

11

at 880. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Final Order (ECF No. 98) is DENIED.
Dated: November 1, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-0005-WQH-KSC