Hammer et al v. City of Sun Valley et al

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs' Motions for Reconsideration (Dkt. 77 , 81 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SHARON R. HAMMER and JAMES R.
DONOVAL, husband and wife

Case No. 1:13-cv-00211-EJL

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
CITY OF SUN VALLEY; NILS RIBI, in
his individual and official capacity; and
DEWAYNE BRISCOE, in his individual
and official capacity,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter are Plaintiffs’ Motions for
Reconsideration. (Dkt. 77, 81.) The parties have filed their responsive briefing and the matter
is ripe for the Court’s consideration. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the
Motions shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.

ORDER - 1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Sharon R. Hammer and James R. Donoval, husband and wife, filed a
Complaint against Defendant City of Sun Valley (“Sun Valley” or “the City”) as well as
Defendants Nils Ribi and DeWayne Briscoe in both their individual and official capacity.
(Dkt. 1.) The Complaint raised fourteen claims relating to allegations concerning events
occurring during and after Ms. Hammer’s employment as the City Administrator of Sun
Valley from June 1, 2008 until January 19, 2012. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants filed a Motion for a
Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to dismiss all but two of the claims pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Dkt. 18, 41.) This Court entered a Memorandum Decision
and Order granting the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts 1-8,
10, and 12-14. (Dkt. 41.) The claims remaining for trial are Counts 9 and 11 alleging a
§ 1983 claim of Deprivation of Due Process against all Defendants and Assault of Ms.
Hammer against Mr. Ribi individually. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Amend. (Dkt. 44, 45, 70.) Both sides also filed Motions for
Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 47, 48.) On July 28, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and entering a Judgment in favor of the
Defendants. (Dkt. 71, 72.) Plaintiffs have now filed the instant Motions to Reconsider asking
this Court to review its Order granting Defendants’ summary judgment. (Dkt. 77, 81.) The
Court finds as follows.
STANDARD OF LAW
Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a motion

ORDER - 2

to reconsider. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59 provides a means whereby the Court
may order a new trial or alter or amend a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.1 The Ninth Circuit
has identified three reasons sufficient to warrant a court’s reconsideration of a prior order:
“(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court
committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is
an intervening change in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740
(9th Cir. 2001) (applying reconsideration to a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend a judgment);
see also School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (denying a
Rule 59 motion to reconsider a summary judgment ruling). Upon demonstration of one of
these three grounds, the movant must then come forward with “facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Donaldson v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). Courts in this Circuit have also
considered whether the movant makes a convincing showing that the court failed to consider
material facts that were presented prior to the court's decision. See Lyden v. Nike Inc., No.
3:13-cv-00662-HZ, 2014 WL 4631206, *1 (D.Or. Sept. 15, 2014) (citing cases).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the Court may reconsider a final
judgment or any order based on: “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment;

1

Rule 59 was not included in the Court’s prior Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration because no judgement had yet been entered in this case. (Dkt. 70.) Because a
Judgment has now been entered, Rule 59 is appropriate to include in this Order. (Dkt. 72.)
ORDER - 3

or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d
at 1263. Under Rule 60(b)(6), the so-called catch-all provision, the party seeking relief “must
demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond [her] control that prevented [her] from
proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.,
452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “[t]o
receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
which prevented or rendered [her] unable to prosecute [her] case.” Lal v. California, 610
F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). This Rule must be “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id.
(quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005)). Any Rule 60(b)
motion must be brought within a reasonable time and no later than one year after entry of
judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment in this case arguing 1) the Court improperly relied on two cases in
concluding the Defendants were exempt from a liberty interest, stigma-plus claim and 2) the
Court erred by finding the stigmatizing statements by Sun Valley officials were merely
reporting of the “goings-on” in Sun Valley. (Dkt. 77, 81.) The Defendants counter that the
Court’s prior ruling is correct, Plaintiffs Motions improperly seek to re-argue summary
judgment, the legal authority cited by the Plaintiffs does not support their position, and the
ORDER - 4

factual contentions do not warrant reconsideration. (Dkt. 85.) The Court finds as follows.
1.

Case Law Regarding Exemption from a Liberty Interest, Stigma-Plus Claim
Plaintiffs argue the Court improperly relied on Bishop v. Wood and Loehr v. Ventura

County Commissioners as a basis for exempting the Defendants from the liberty interest,
stigma-plus claim. (Dkt. 77, 81, 86.) The litigation exemption in Bishop and Loehr does not
apply here, Plaintiffs assert, because the stigmatizing statements made against Ms. Hammer
were disclosed after she had filed the original IPPEA case. Plaintiffs contend the Court
should have applied the reasoning in the other cases they cite, including Cullum v. Teton, in
which those courts allowed the claim to go forward. Defendants counter that the Court
properly granted summary judgment based on the finding that the stigmatizing statements
were not connected to Ms. Hammer’s termination and were, instead, made in response to her
IPPEA case. (Dkt. 85 at 10.)
Plaintiffs do not dispute the law applicable to the liberty interest, stigma-plus claim
as stated in the Court’s Order. (Dkt. 77, 81, 86.) They instead disagree with this Court’s
application of the law to the facts and circumstances of this case. Specifically, this Court’s
conclusion that the statements made by City officials and others in separate judicial
proceedings do not support Plaintiffs’ liberty interest, stigma-plus claim because they were
made in response to Ms. Hammer’s IPPEA case. (Dkt. 71 at 12-13.) In reaching that
conclusion, the Court considered both Bishop and Loehr. The Court has now reviewed its
prior ruling as well as the case law cited to by Plaintiffs in their Motions for Reconsideration.
Having done so, the Court finds its prior ruling on this issue correctly decided the issue. The
ORDER - 5

instant Motions merely reargue the issue already presented to and decided by this Court. As
such, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to show a basis for reconsideration under either
Rule 59 or 60 exists in this case and the Motions are denied.
2.

Factual Findings Regarding the Stigmatizing Statements
Plaintiffs argue the Court erred by finding that numerous stigmatizing statements

made by Sun Valley officials were merely reporting of the “goings-on” in Sun Valley. (Dkt.
77, 81, 86.) The Court, Plaintiffs assert, should have found that at least some, if not all, of
the statements identified in the record are sufficiently stigmatizing to support a liberty
interest, stigma-plus claim. Defendants respond that the Court’s ruling granting summary
judgment is correct. (Dkt. 85.)
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs’ arguments, its prior Order, and the entire record
herein. Having done so, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Motions re-argue the previously decided
Motion for Summary Judgment and, therefore, do not provide an appropriate basis for
reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, 60. Plaintiffs have again stepped through the
numerous statements they allege support their liberty interest, stigma-plus claim. All but a
few of these statements were previously presented to and considered by the Court. (Dkt. 71.)
Those few statements that were not previously presented are not “new” evidence because
they existed at the time of the summary judgment motions. Regardless, the Court has
considered the Plaintiffs’ arguments on reconsideration and reviewed its Order and finds its
ruling and conclusions are correct. The newly presented statements made in the Motions for
Reconsideration are akin to and fall within the same groupings of statements discussed in the
ORDER - 6

Court’s prior Order. (Dkt. 71 at 10.) Therefore, they do not necessitate a different outcome.
The Motions to Reconsider are denied.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motions for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 77, 81) are DENIED.

March 10, 2016

ORDER - 7