Northern Trust, NA v. Wolfe

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT KENNETH I. WOLFE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRCP RULES 59(e) AND 60(b) re: 77 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 3/18/2013. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPartic ipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
NORTHERN TRUST, NA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENNETH I. WOLFE,
Defendant.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 11-00531 LEK-BMK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT KENNETH I. WOLFE’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRCP RULES 59(e) AND 60(b)
Before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant
Kenneth I. Wolfe’s (“Wolfe”) Motion for Relief Under FRCP Rules
59(e) and 60(b) (“Motion”), filed on February 11, 2013.
no. 77.]

[Dkt.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Northern Trust, NA

(“Northern Trust”) filed its memoranda in opposition to the
Motion on February 28, 2013.

[Dkt. no. 84.]

reply on March 15, 2013. [Dkt. no. 88.]

Wolfe filed his

The Court finds this

matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to
Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States
District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
After careful consideration of the Motion, supporting and
opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Wolfe’s
Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background in this

case is set forth in this Court’s January 31, 2013 Order Granting
Northern Trust’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Complaint,
Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, and Order of Sale, and
Granting Northern Trust’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Kenneth I.
Wolfe’s First Amended Counterclaim (“1/31/13 Order”).
398751.

2013 WL

Judgment was entered pursuant to the 1/31/13 Order on

February 1, 2013, [dkt. no. 76,] and the Court entered a Decree
of Foreclosure and Order of Sale on February 26, 2013.

[Dkt. no.

82.]
DISCUSSION
In the instant Motion, Wolfe moves under Rules 59(e)
and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order
altering or amending the judgment entered by this Court in favor
of Northern Trust pursuant to the 1/31/13 Order.
Rule 59(e) authorizes motions to alter or amend a
judgment.

In the Ninth Circuit, a successful motion for

reconsideration under Rule 59(e) must accomplish two goals.
First, it must demonstrate some reason that the Court should
reconsider its prior decision.

Second, it must set forth facts

or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to
reverse its prior decision.

See White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp.

2d 1271, 1274 (D. Hawai`i, 2006); Na Mamo O‘Aha ‘Ino v. Galiher,
60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D. Hawai`i 1999).

The Ninth Circuit

has set forth the grounds justifying reconsideration under Rule

2

59(e):
In general, there are four basic grounds upon
which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if
such motion is necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact upon which the judgment
rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present
newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the
amendment is justified by an intervening change in
controlling law.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).
While a Rule 59(e) motion is not limited to those four grounds,
alteration or amendment of a judgment is “an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly.”

Id. (quoting McDowell v.

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
permits relief from final judgments, orders, or proceedings.
Such a motion may be granted on any one of six grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment
is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Rule 60 reconsideration is generally

appropriate in three instances: (1) when there has been an
intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has come
to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or
3

prevent manifest injustice.

School District No. 1J v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

Like motions brought

under Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b) motions are committed to the
discretion of the trial court.

Barber v. Hawai`i, 42 F.3d 1185,

1198 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are addressed to the
sound discretion of the district court.”).
In the instant Motion, Wolfe contends that he has newly
discovered evidence, namely, 1,884 documents produced by Northern
Trust on December 7, 2012.
February 1, 2013.

Judgment was entered against Wolfe on

As such, the purported “newly discovered”

evidence was not discovered after judgment was entered.

Because

the evidence was in Wolfe’s possession before judgment was
rendered, it is not newly discovered for purposes of a postjudgment motion.

See Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane,

331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Evidence in the possession
of the party before the judgment was rendered is not newly
discovered . . . .”) (internal quotations omitted).
Wolfe also argues that the 1/31/13 Order contained a
“manifest error of law and fact” because he was prevented from
adequately responding to Northern Trust’s motions because the
documents were not produced until after his opposition was due.
The Court notes, however, that Wolfe raised this argument during
the January 22, 2013 hearing, and the Court expressly rejected it

4

in the 1/31/13 Order.

A party’s mere disagreement with the Court

does not justify reconsideration.

See Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC

Home Loans Serv., LP, 2012 WL 1987165, *19 (D. Hawai`i May 31,
2012); Dep’t of Educ. v. M.F., 2012 WL 639141, *1 (D. Hawai`i
Feb. 28, 2012); White, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 1274.
To the extent Wolfe makes other arguments in his Motion
which this Court has not specifically addressed, the Court finds
that they likewise fail to demonstrate a basis for relief under
either Rule 59(e) or 60(b).

The Court therefore DENIES Wolfe’s

Motion.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Wolfe’s Motion for
Relief Under FRCP Rules 59(e) and 60(b), filed on February 11,
2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 18, 2013.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

NORTHERN TRUST, NA V. KENNETH I. WOLFE; CIVIL NO. 11-00531 LEKBMK; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT KENNETH I. WOLFE’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRCP RULES 59(e) AND 60 (b)

5