United States of America v. Dental Care Associates of Spokane Valley, P.S. et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING ECF No. 126 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF'S ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (TR, Case Administrator)

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Apr 29, 2016
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO: 2:15-CV-23-RMP
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9
10
11
12

DENTAL CARE ASSOCIATES OF
SPOKANE VALLEY, PS; DR.
JAMES G. HOOD, DDS; and KAREN
J. HOOD,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO OBJECT TO
PLAINTIFF’S ORDER FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Defendants.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ “Motion to Object to Plaintiff’s

15

Order for Permanent Injunction,” ECF No. 126, which the Court construes as a

16

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment entered previously, ECF No. 107. The

17

Court has reviewed the Motion and the record, and is fully informed.

18
19
20

ANALYSIS
Although Defendants do not cite which law or rule they rely upon for this
Motion, the Court construes it as one brought pursuant to the Federal Rules of

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF’S
ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ~ 1

1

Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). “While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to

2

reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to

3

be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

4

resources.’” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12

5

James Wm. Moore et al., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)).

6

“Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

7

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

8

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

9

controlling law.’” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v.

10

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))

11

Similarly, Rule 60(b) permits “reconsideration only upon a showing of (1)

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and Backlund v. Barnhart,

16

778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985)).

17

Defendants’ Motion alleges that the Department of Justice was attempting to

18

legislate by seeking an injunction from this Court. See ECF No. 126. Defendants’

19

arguments fail to meet the standard for a motion for reconsideration or to amend a

20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF’S
ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ~ 2

1

previous order and fail to provide any good cause to reconsider this Court’s prior

2

Order imposing a permanent injunction.

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion to
Object to Plaintiff’s Order for Permanent Injunction,” ECF No. 126, is DENIED.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED this 29th day of April 2016.

8
9
10

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF’S
ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ~ 3