Courter v. Karolle et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2013, AND ORDER GRANTING COURTER'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF DAT ED MARCH 19, 2013 re: 80 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 8/19/2013. ~ Related documents: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order: Doc no. 72 . Motion in Limine re: Documents Produced by Defendant after Discovery Cutoff: Doc no. 31 ; Minutes of hearing on said Motion and other matters: Doc no. 56 ~ (afc) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants 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
JON COURTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JEFFREY KAROLLE, In Personam, )
and S/V TRADITION, O.N.
)
227332, her engines,
)
machinery, furniture, sails, )
rigging and appurtenances,
)
In. Rem.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 11-00736 LEK-KSC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2013, AND ORDER GRANTING
COURTER’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY
DEFENDANT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATED MARCH 19, 2013
Before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
Jeffrey Karolle’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Reconsideration of
Findings of Fact and Law and Order Entered on June 2, 2013,1 and
Order Granting Courter’s Motion in Limine Re Documents Produced
by Defendant After Discover Cutoff Dated March 19, 2013
(“Motion”), filed on July 4, 2013.

[Dkt. no. 80.]

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Jon Courter (“Plaintiff”) filed
his Memorandum in Opposition on July 22, 2013, and Defendant
filed his Reply on August 8, 2013.

1

[Dkt. nos. 85, 86.]

The Court notes that it entered the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Order on June 6, 2013. [Dkt. no. 72.]

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, Defendant’s Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons
set forth below.
BACKGROUND
This matter came before the Court for a bench trial
from March 19 to 21, 2013.

The relevant factual and procedural

background in this case is set forth in this Court’s June 6, 2013
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order (“6/6/13
Order”).

2013 WL 2468360.
Defendant’s Motion seeks reconsideration of the 6/6/13

Order regarding paragraphs 14 and 15 of Section II.A. in the
Court’s conclusions of law.

The Court found that no purchaser

was listed on the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) Certificate
of Documentation (“COD”) for the vessel TRADITION, O.N. 227332
(“Tradition”) when Plaintiff signed the back of the COD on
January 19, 2011, and that the signed COD was never filed with
the USCG National Vessel Documentation Center (“NVDC”).
*7.

Id. at

Based on the foregoing, the Court concluded that title to

Tradition did not transfer when Plaintiff signed the back of the
COD on January 19, 2011.

The Court further concluded that the

2

documentary evidence produced at trial established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff is the sole owner
of, and has legal title to, Tradition.

Id.

Defendant’s Motion also seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s decision to grant Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Re:
Documents Produced by Defendant After Discovery Cutoff (“Motion
in Limine”) [dkt. no. 31].

[Minutes, filed 3/19/13 (dkt. no.

56).]
DISCUSSION
In order to obtain reconsideration of the 6/6/13 Order
and the Court’s ruling on the Motion in Limine, Defendant’s
Motion “must accomplish two goals.

First, a motion for

reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should
reconsider its prior decision.

Second, a motion for

reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision.”

See Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp.

429, 430 (D. Hawai`i 1996); accord Tom v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, CIV.
NO. 10–00653 SOM/BMK, 2011 WL 2712958, at *1 (D. Hawai`i July 12,
2011) (citations omitted).

This district court recognizes three

grounds for granting reconsideration of an order:

“(1) an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.”

White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271,

3

1274 (D. Hawai`i 2006) (citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch.
Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998)).
“Whether or not to grant reconsideration[,]” however,
“is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”

Navajo

Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian
Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
“As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then
it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider,
rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to
be sufficient.”

City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica

Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Defendant’s Motion seeks reconsideration on the ground
that the 6/6/13 Order contains clear errors of law.

First,

Defendant argues that the COD he transmitted to the NVDC on
November 22, 2011 validly transferred title to Tradition from
Plaintiff to Defendant.

Specifically, Defendant argues that:

(1) the COD satisfies the requirements for filing a bill of sale
to convey title; (2) the COD satisfies the requirements for
transfers by sale; (3) Defendant’s insertion of his own name in
the COD as the purchaser did not invalidate the transfer of
title; (4) Defendant’s delay in transmitting the COD to the NVDC
on November 22, 2011, after Plaintiff had signed the COD on

4

January 19, 2011, did not invalidate the transfer of title; and
(5) Defendant’s transmission of the COD to the NVDC via facsimile
on November 22, 2011 constituted an effective filing, despite the
fact that a new COD was not issued to Defendant.

Defendant,

however, could have raised these arguments in his pleadings or at
trial.2

See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d

1253, 1269 (D. Hawai`i 2005) (“reconsideration may not be based
on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at
the time of the challenged decision”).
Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not sustain
his burden of proving that he is the sole owner of Tradition.
Defendant raised this argument at trial, and Defendant merely
disagrees with the Court’s ruling on this issue.

This district

court has recognized that “[m]ere disagreement with a previous
order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”

White, 424

F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (citing Leonq v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.
Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988)).
Defendant’s Motion also seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s ruling on the Motion in Limine.
Rules provides in pertinent part:

2

Rule LR60.1 of the Local

“Motions for reconsideration

The Court notes that, even if Defendant had timely raised
these arguments in his pleadings or at trial, it would not have
altered the Court’s conclusion that, because no purchaser was
identified in the COD when Plaintiff signed it on January 19,
2011, title to Tradition did not transfer from Plaintiff to
Defendant.
5

of interlocutory orders . . . must be filed and served not more
than fourteen (14) days after the court’s written order is
filed.”

The Court notes that the Minutes containing the ruling

on the Motion in Limine were filed on March 19, 2013, and that
Defendant filed the instant Motion on July 4, 2013, more than
fourteen days later.

Thus, Defendant’s Motion is untimely to the

extent that it seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March 19,
2013 ruling on the Motion in Limine.
To the extent that Defendant’s Reply presents different
variations of Defendant’s arguments, those arguments are also not
properly before this Court, as Defendant should have raised the
arguments in the Motion itself.

See Local Rule LR7.4 (“Any

argument raised for the first time in the reply shall be
disregarded.”).

This Court therefore FINDS that Defendant has

not presented any ground warranting reconsideration of the 6/6/13
Order’s conclusions of law or the Court’s ruling on the Motion in
Limine.
Finally, in Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition,
Plaintiff asks the Court to “enter a finding that Defendant’s
[M]otion is frivolous and that sanctions in the form of
[attorneys’] fees and costs incurred to oppose Defendant’s Motion
be imposed against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and
severally.”

[Mem. in Opp. at 22 (citation omitted).]

The Court

presumes that Plaintiff is making this request pursuant to

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11.

The Court notes that

“[a] motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other
motion[.]”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).

This Court therefore

DENIES Plaintiff’s request to impose sanctions against Defendant
and his counsel.

The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing

of a motion for sanctions in accordance with Rule 11(c)(2).

This

Court emphasizes that it expresses no opinion at this time on the
issue of whether or not Defendant’s Motion is frivolous.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Law and Order Entered on
June 2, 2013, and Order Granting Courter’s Motion in Limine Re
Documents Produced by Defendant After Discover Cutoff Dated
March 19, 2013, filed July 4, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.

The Court

further DENIES Plaintiff’s request to impose sanctions against
Defendant and Defendant’s counsel WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 19, 2013.

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

JON COURTER V. JEFFREY KAROLLE, ETC; CIVIL NO. 11-00736 LEK-KSC;
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2013,
AND ORDER GRANTING COURTER’S MOTION IN LIMINE RE DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATED MARCH 19, 2013

8