Securities and Exchange Commission v. Fujinaga et al

Filing 371

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 370 relief defendant June Fujinaga's motion for reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/30/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Case No. 2:13-CV-1658 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

Plaintiff(s),
v.

11

EDWIN YOSHIHIRO FUJINAGA and MRI
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14
15
16
17

Presently before the court is relief defendant June Fujinaga’s (“relief defendant”) motion
for reconsideration. (ECF No. 370).
As an initial matter, the court finds no response necessary and further finds the motion
properly resolved without oral argument. See LR 78-1.

18

A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual

19

circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

20

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

21

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

22

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

23

(9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no

24

later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

25

Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however

26

“the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

27

conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)

28

(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments .

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

. . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.” Kona

2

Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

3

In the instant motion, relief defendant requests that the court reconsider its order (ECF No.

4

368) entered on November 15, 2016, denying her motion for leave to file a state complaint (ECF

5

No. 356). (ECF No. 370). In particular, relief defendant argues that the court erred in finding that

6

she provided no caselaw in support of her motion. (ECF No. 370 at 5). Relief defendant contends

7

that her motion did in fact provide caselaw as it included the following legal authority:

8
The normal rule prevents suits against a federal receiver except by leave of the
court. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. United Fin. Grp., Inc., 576 F.2d 217, 221 (9th Cir.
1978). A suit for possession of property held by a receiver would fall outside the
scope of the statute providing that trustees, receivers or managers of any property
may be sued without leave of court that appointed them with respect to any of their
acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property. Sec. &
Exch. Comm’n v. Lincoln Thrift Ass’n, 557 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1977). 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 959(a).

9
10
11
12
13
14

(ECF No. 370 at 5).

15

The court disagrees. The “legal authority” recited merely restates the obvious—that relief

16

defendant must seek leave of court to file a state complaint involving the funds currently under the

17

control of the receiver—and does not provide any basis upon which leave to file a state complaint

18

would be warranted. While relief defendant did recite caselaw in her motion for leave to file a

19

state complaint, she nonetheless failed to set forth caselaw or arguments in support of her motion.1

20

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that relief defendant has not shown that “highly

21

unusual circumstances” are present to warrant reconsideration. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d

22

at 890. Because the motion fails to set forth any newly discovered evidence or intervening change

23

in controlling law and because no clear error was committed, reconsideration is inappropriate. See

24

School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

25

...

26

...

27

1

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

In the November 15th order, the court held, in relevant part: “[t]he funds relief defendant seeks
to recover in her state court complaint are the same funds currently under the control of the
receiver. Relief defendant provides no caselaw or arguments in support of her motion. Rather,
the motion merely reasserts arguments previously rejected by the court.” (ECF No. 368 at 7).
-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that relief defendant June

3
4

Fujinaga’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 370) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED November 30, 2016.

5
6

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-