Kriegman v. Mirrow

Filing 61

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 59 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SK, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

In Re:
NO: 2:14-CV-268-RMP

8

LLS AMERICA, LLC,
Bankr. Case No. 09-06194-FPC11
Debtor,

9
10
11

BRUCE P. KRIEGMAN, solely in his
capacity as court-appointed Chapter 11
Trustee for LLS America, LLC,

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ANGELA MIRROW, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Amend

18

Order, ECF No. 59. The Court has considered the record and is fully informed.

19

The parties and the Court are familiar with the facts of this case, which will not be

20

repeated here.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION ~ 1

1

Plaintiff filed this motion for hearing with oral argument at the scheduled

2

pretrial conference. However, where oral argument is requested, “the Court may

3

decide that oral argument is not warranted and proceed to determine any motion

4

without oral argument.” LR 7.1(h)(3)(B)(iii). Oral argument on this matter is

5

unnecessary.

6

Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its Order Granting in Part and

7

Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 54. Plaintiff brings its

8

motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Reconsideration

9

pursuant to Rule 59(e) “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

10

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

11

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” See

12

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

13

Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) permits “reconsideration only upon a showing of (1)

14

mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud;

15

(4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary

16

circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d

17

1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19

Plaintiff requests the Court to amend its prior order regarding three separate
issues. The Court considers each issue in turn.

20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION ~ 2

1

First, Plaintiff asks the Court to state that the jury must decide whether

2

Defendant is entitled to a setoff under RCW 19.40.081. Regarding this issue,

3

Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s discussion of the indirect benefit rule and

4

contends that a jury should be allowed to decide whether Defendant’s husband,

5

Alex Mirrow, relinquished any right to use the relevant transfer as a setoff.

6

In its argument regarding the indirect benefit rule, Plaintiff largely reiterates

7

its contentions from the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has provided no

8

basis for the Court to reconsider its understanding of the indirect benefit rule.

9

Moreover, in the prior order, the Court did not decide whether Alex Mirrow

10

had relinquished any right to apply the transfer as a setoff for amounts that he

11

received from Debtor. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to decide this issue

12

in response to the present motion for reconsideration.

13

Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to amend its order to clarify that Alex

14

Mirrow’s good faith, which was litigated in a prior action, will not be litigated

15

again in this case. As Defendant recognizes in her response brief, the judgment

16

entered against Alex Mirrow is not subject to challenge in this action against his

17

wife. See ECF No. 60 at 5. To the extent that the Court’s prior order implied

18

otherwise, the Court now clarifies that Alex Mirrow’s good faith already has been

19

determined and is not subject to dispute in this case.

20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION ~ 3

1

Third, and finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to limit the scope of argument and

2

evidence that Defendant may present regarding her husband’s authority to act as

3

her agent in dealing with Debtor. As the Court explained in its prior order, the

4

existence of agency requires a fact-specific inquiry, and there is “a genuine dispute

5

as to Alex Mirrow’s agency for Defendant.” ECF No. 54 at 12-13. Plaintiff offers

6

no proper reason for the Court to reconsider its ruling on this matter.

7
8
9

In sum, the Court clarifies that the issue of Alex Mirrow’s good faith is not a
proper subject of this case but otherwise denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

10

Reconsideration and to Amend Order, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED IN PART

11

AND DENIED IN PART.

12
13
14
15
16

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED this 14th day of April 2015.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

17
18
19
20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION ~ 4