Franklin v. City of Kingsburg

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2024
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00824
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 VERNON FRANKLIN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00824-SKO

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 v. (Doc. 62) 12 13 CITY OF KINGSBURG, Defendant. 14 _____________________________________/ 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Kingsburg (“the City”)’s motion for 17 reconsideration of the Court’s order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 61), 18 filed May 2, 2023. (Doc. 62.) The motion was taken under submission on the papers without a 19 hearing by the then-assigned District Judge on May 4, 2023. (Doc. 65.) On June 10, 2024, the 20 parties consented to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. (See Docs. 75–77.) 21 “Under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent 22 highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 23 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 24 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, under this Court’s 25 Local Rules, any request to reconsider must explain “what new or different facts or circumstances 26 are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 27 grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the 28 prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 1 The party moving for reconsideration bears the burden of demonstrating the grounds for 2 reconsideration. See 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665. “Absent a showing of manifest 3 injustice, the court will not disturb its prior ruling in the interest of fairness.” Advanced Steel 4 Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., No. 16-0148, 2020 WL 6043935, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 5 2020). 6 Here, the City asserts two grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying its 7 motion for judgment on the pleadings, neither of which has merit. First, it contends that the 8 California Court of Appeal’s decision in Malear v. State, 89 Cal. App. 5th 213 (2023), is an 9 “intervening change in the law.” (Doc. 62 at 10.) But Malear is not an “intervening change” in 10 controlling law: it was decided on March 13, 2023, five weeks before the Court issued its decision 11 on the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 17, 2023 (see Doc. 61). See Tucker v. 12 S. Shore Villas Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2:15-CV-00961-JAD-NJK, 2017 WL 810281, at *3 (D. 13 Nev. Mar. 1, 2017) (decision not an intervening change in controlling law where it was decided 14 before the challenged order). 15 Second, the City contends that the Court erred in applying Malear to this case. (See Doc. 16 62 at 10–18.) “A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 17 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn 18 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 19 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). During the five-week 20 period between the deciding of Malear and the issuance of the Court’s order, the City could have 21 sought approval from the Court to file a sur-reply directed to the Malear decision. See E.D. Cal. 22 L.R. 230(m). It did not do so. 23 Nevertheless, now that the City has addressed Malear post hoc, the Court finds that there is 24 no evidence of clear error in the Court’s order. See Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 25 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Clear error occurs when ‘the reviewing court on the entire record is left with 26 the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’”) (quoting United States v. U.S. 27 Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Rather, the City has shown a mere disagreement with the 28 Court’s conclusions. Because clear error has not been demonstrated, reconsideration is not 1 appropriate. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2 2001) (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 3 decision.”). 4 As the City has not met its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j) to 5 justify reconsideration of the Court’s order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings, the 6 motion for reconsideration (Doc. 62) is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: June 26, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28