Sundby v. Myers

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DALE SUNDBY, Trustee,, Case No.: 19-CV-0390-GPC-AHG 21-CV-2013-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER RE PLAINTIFF DALE SUNDBY’S IMPROPER USE OF 14 MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, et al., OBJECTIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 15, 2022, the Court issued an Order mandating that legal 18 representation be obtained on behalf of the Dale H. Sundby and Edith Littlefield Sundby, 19 Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989. ECF No. 310. Plaintiff Dale Sundby objected 20 to this Order. ECF No. 312. On March 17, 2023, after inviting briefing on the issue, ECF 21 No. 313, the Court reaffirmed its December 2022 Order and clarified that it interpreted 22 “Sundby’s objections to have been a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order.” ECF 23 No. 324 at 5 n.4. Sundby objected to the March 17, 2023 Order. ECF No. 325. The Court 24 issued a notice explaining that the deadline from the March 17, 2023 Order was still in 25 effect but declining to take any further action on Sundby’s objections as they did not appear 26 to be a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 327. 27 1 1 Now, Sundby has issued another round of objections and insists, without pointing to 2 any authority, that he has “a right to have [his] objections ruled upon.” ECF No. 328 at 2. 3 The Court is not aware of any provision allowing parties to object to a judge’s order outside 4 the context of a trial. Presumably, Sundby is relying on Rule 46, but Rule 46 is inapplicable 5 because it offers a means of objecting to rulings or orders at trial. See, e.g., Monaghan v. 6 Hill, 140 F.2d 31, 33 (9th Cir. 1944) (discussing Rule 46 purpose of calling errors “to the 7 attention of the trial court”); Guangyu Wang v. Nevada Sys. Of Higher Educ., No. 3:18-cv- 8 00075-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 2250272, at *1 (D. Nev. May 23, 2019) (liberally construing 9 pro se plaintiff’s objection to a court order as a motion for reconsideration); Lagmay v. 10 Nobriga, No. 15-00463 LEK/KJM, 2016 WL 2733101, at *1–2 (D. Haw. May 10, 2016) 11 (“Rule 46 governs objections at trial and has no application here.”). 12 To the extent that Sundby is seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the Court denies 13 reconsideration. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 14 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 15 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 16 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Sundby has not presented any new 17 evidence or suggested that there has been a change in the controlling law. See ECF Nos. 18 325 & 328 (absence). Although Sundby argues that some of the Court’s findings were 19 erroneous, see, e.g., ECF No. 325 at 2 (disagreeing with the Court’s interpretation of Ninth 20 Circuit opinion), none of his objections persuasively suggest that the Court’s findings were 21 clearly erroneous. Accordingly, reconsideration of the Court’s March 17, 2023 Order is 22 unwarranted. 23 The deadline from the Court’s March 17, 2023 Order remains in effect and 24 unaffected by Sundby’s objections. See ECF No. 324. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 2 2 Dated: April 3, 2023 2 apho C04 3 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel A United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91.GV.2013.-GPC-AHG