Patton v. Connex TCT LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-03457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 10 Case No. 24-cv-03457-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER CONSTRUING FIRST 12 AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOTION CONNEX TCT LLC, et al., FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 13 DENYING MOTION Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Patton A. Carney has filed a “First Amended Complaint” in this matter and 17 requested a referral to the Federal Pro Bono Project, despite the entry of judgment on October 15, 18 2024. See Dkt. 15. While Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint after Defendant’s 19 motion to dismiss was granted, the deadline for any such amendment was October 12, 2024. 20 Therefore, his amendment is untimely and will be construed as a motion for reconsideration. 21 Because Plaintiff has not shown any grounds for reconsideration, his motion is denied. 22 Additionally, his request for the appointment of pro bono counsel and his motion to proceed in 23 forma pauperis are denied, as this matter has concluded. 24 II. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff brought this putative qui tam action, averring violations of the California False 26 Claims Act (“CFCA”). See Cal. Gov. Code § 12650 et seq. Plaintiff initially filed this case in 27 California state court, and the State of California declined to intervene. Defendant Transdev 1 August 26, 2024. On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff was informed via order he had forty-five days to 2 file an amended complaint. He was also given the contact information for the Federal Pro Bono 3 Project. Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the order dismissing his complaint. That vacatur 4 motion was denied on September 6, 2024. 5 The forty-five-day deadline to amend passed on October 12, 2024. On October 15, 2024, 6 Plaintiff filed a “First Amended Complaint” (“FAC”), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and 7 a motion requesting the appointment of pro bono counsel. Plaintiff’s FAC reiterates his claims 8 under the CFCA, adding claims under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) and its reverse false 9 claims provision. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G). Because Plaintiff’s FAC was untimely, it will be 10 construed as a motion seeking reconsideration of the judgment. 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 13 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 14 2003) (quoting 12 JAMES WILLIAM MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 15 2000)). As such, it should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn 16 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 17 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under this District’s local 18 rules, a party must first seek and be granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and may 19 prevail on such a motion only by demonstrating at least one of the following: (1) “That at the time 20 of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to 21 the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; (2) “The 22 emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or (3) 23 “A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which 24 were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b); see, e.g., Diaz v. 25 Tesla, Inc., No. 17-cv-06748-WHO, 2022 WL 17584235, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022). 26 27 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by the local 3 rules. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Even assuming Plaintiff correctly sought and was granted leave to file such 4 a motion, reconsideration is not warranted based on the information included in his FAC. Plaintiff 5 avers Defendants violated California regulations on corporate registration and Internal Revenue 6 Service (“IRS”) rules on the assignment and usage of Employment Identification Numbers 7 (“EINs”). While Plaintiff contends these new averments address the insufficiencies of his first 8 complaint, they do not offer any material difference in fact or law from what was presented before 9 dismissal. Plaintiff’s motion does not offer evidence of newly unearthed facts or changes of law 10 || occurring after the dismissal of his complaint. Finally, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate material 11 facts or dispositive legal arguments were presented but not considered, as Plaintiff’s newly added 12 || claims were not presented at the motion to dismiss phase. 5 13 V. CONCLUSION 14 Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma 3 15 || pauperis and seeking appointment of pro bono counsel are also denied. If Plaintiff wishes to file 16 an entirely new complaint, he may wish to consult the Federal Pro Bono Project, the Northern 3 17 District of California’s free legal helpdesk for self-represented individuals. Plaintiff can email 18 fedpro @ sfbar.org or call 415-782-8982 to get in touch with the Federal Pro Bono Project. The 19 || helpdesk will be able to aid Plaintiff in signing up to become an e-filer and receive the Courts 20 || filings electronically. 21 22 || ITISSO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: October 24, 2024

RICHARD SEEBORG 26 Chief United States District Judge 27 28 ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION . CASE No. 24-cv-03457-RS