Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. Otter et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM DECISION Idaho Dairymen's Association's Motion to Reconsider the Order Denying Intervention 61 is Denied. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (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

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00104-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
C.L. BUTCH OTTER, in his official
capacity as Governor of Idaho; and
LAWRENCE WASDEN, in his official
capacity as State of Idaho,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it the Idaho Dairymen’s Association’s (“IDA”) Motion to
Reconsider the Order Denying Intervention (Dkt. 61). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will deny the Motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 59 is not intended to provide litigants with a “second bite at the apple.”
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions to reconsider are requests
for an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
ORDER - 1

2003). The high bar that movants must overcome to prevail on a motion for
reconsideration reflects the courts’ “concerns for preserving dwindling resources and
promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello v. United States Gov’t, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009
(C.D. Cal. 1991).
As a result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion to alter or amend
judgment may be granted: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or
fact; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening
change in the law. Turner v. Burlington North. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
A court may grant a party relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b), like Rule 59(e),
should be used “sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” and only
in “extraordinary circumstances.” Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citing United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.
1993)).
The catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6) should only be granted “as an equitable
remedy to prevent manifest injustice,” United States v. Washington, 98 F.3d 1159, 1163
ORDER - 2

(9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), or where the movant shows
extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536
(2005).
ANALYSIS
The Court previously determined that the IDA should not be permitted to
intervene as of right in this action because its interests are adequately represented by the
State of Idaho. Memorandum Decision and Order dated June 16, 2014 at 5, Dkt. 48. The
Court further determined that although the IDA met all requirements for permissive
intervention, permissive intervention was not appropriate because “the State can
adequately represent [the] interests” of the IDA. Id. at 7.
The IDA now asks the Court to reconsider this decision. It does not, however: (1)
identify any error of law or fact; (2) identify any new evidence in support of its motion;
(3) argue that the Court’s decision would result in any manifest injustice; or (4) claim any
change in the controlling case law since the Court denied its motion. In fact, the IDA
cites no new law in support of its motion. Instead, it only argues that ALDF’s
characterization of its amicus brief as raising “multiple arguments not presented by the
Defendants” warrants this Court’s reconsideration of the order denying the IDA
intervenor status. IDA’s Opening Br. at 3, Dkt. 61-1. In other words, IDA fails to meet
the standards for reconsideration. The Court will therefore deny the IDA’s motion to
reconsider.

ORDER - 3

ORDER
R
T
ERED that Idaho Dairymen’s As
t
ssociation’s (“IDA”) M
s
Motion to
IT IS ORDE
Reconsider the Ord Denying Interventio (Dkt. 61 is DENIE
der
g
on
1)
ED.

TED: October 14, 201
14
DAT

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

ORDER - 4