Reisenauer v. Columbia Debt Recovery

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jul 06, 2022 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 8 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:21-CV-00122-SAB 11 v. 12 COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY d/b/a ORDER DENYING 13 GENESIS CREDIT MANAGEMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 40. The 18 motion was considered without oral argument. Plaintiff Seth Reisenauer (“Mr. 19 Reisenauer”) is represented by Kirk Miller and Shayne Sutherland. Defendant 20 Columbia Debt Recovery doing business as Genesis Credit Management, LLC 21 (“Defendant CDR”) is represented by Daniel Culicover and William Lockwood. 22 Defendant CDR requests the Court to reconsider its Order Granting in Part 23 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 39. In that Order, the Court 24 granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant CDR on Mr. Reisenauer’s 25 claims that his Hilton tenancy debt was dissolved. Id. at 8. The Court denied 26 summary judgment on the remaining legal issue of whether Mr. Reisenauer’s debt 27 was liquidated, finding that there was a dispute of material fact. Id. at 9. Defendant 28 CDR asks that the Court reconsider this second finding. 1 A district court may reconsider its disposition of a motion for summary 2 judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 3 Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993); Taylor 4 v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989). Rule 59(e) “offers an extraordinary 5 remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 6 resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 7 2000) (quoting 12 JAMES W. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 8 § 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000)). A court may only alter or amend a previous ruling or 9 judgment under Rule 59(e) if: (1) it “is presented with newly discovered 10 evidence”; (2) it “committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 11 manifestly unjust”; or (3) “there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 12 United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 13 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)). 14 The Court finds Defendant CDR has not provided a reason for this Court to 15 reconsider its Order under Rule 59(e). While Defendant CDR does not specify the 16 bases upon which it moves for reconsideration, the Court presumes either 17 (1) newly discovered evidence or (2) clear error or manifest injustice. 18 First, Defendant CDR submits a new exhibit in support of its motion: a 19 professional service agreement assigning debt to Pride Recovery Services, LLC, 20 Defendant CDR’s alleged predecessor entity, which is dated July 21, 2010. ECF 21 No. 42 at 5. “[A] party that fails to introduce facts in a motion or opposition cannot 22 introduce them later in a motion to amend by claiming that they constitute ‘newly 23 discovered evidence’ unless they were previously unavailable.” Zimmerman, 255 24 F.3d at 740 (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. American Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 25 834 (6th Cir. 1999)). Defendant CDR does not contend the agreement is “newly 26 discovered” or could not have been proffered sooner. In contrast, the contract dated 27 July 21, 2010 was plainly available to Defendant CDR when it moved for 28 1||summary judgment. Therefore, the exhibit does not constitute “newly discovered evidence” as envisioned by Rule 59(e). 3 Second, Defendant CDR reiterates the same legal arguments, albeit with greater detail and legal citation. See ECF No. 40 at 5—9. Defendant CDR may be 5|| moving for reconsideration under the clear error or manifest injustice standard. If so, nothing has changed since the Court’s disposition of these legal issues. Disputes of material fact still preclude summary judgment on the issue of whether Mr. Reisenauer’s debt is liquidated (and therefore, whether application of 9)| prejudgment interest was lawful). Defendant CDR has demonstrated neither clear error nor manifest injustice. 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 12 1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 40, is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 15 DATED this 6th day of July 2022. 16 17 18 19 " hl Secon 51 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT?’S