Tri Tool, Inc. v. Hales

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRI TOOL, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BRACIKOWSKI’S MOTION FOR 14 THAD HALES, et al., RECONSIDERATION 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 94, 95) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Mike Bracikowski’s “response” and 18 “declaration” filed in response to the Court’s June 23, 2025 Order awarding Plaintiff Tri 19 Tool, Inc. reasonable expenses to bring its motion to compel against Defendants 20 Bracikowski and Thad Hales.1 (ECF Nos. 94, 95.) Defendant Bracikowski is proceeding 21 in this action pro se. The Court construes these documents as a motion for 22 reconsideration of the Court’s June 23, 2025 order. See 7/18/2025 Minute Order (ECF 23 No. 96). For the reasons stated below, Defendant Bracikowski’s motion for 24 reconsideration is denied. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Relevant background as to the pending motion is provided here, and additional 3 background on Plaintiff’s motion to compel is provided in the Court’s April 15, 2025 4 order. See 4/15/2025 Order (ECF No. 90). On April 15, 2025, the Court issued an order 5 granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel as to Defendants Bracikowski and Hales, and 6 ordered Plaintiff to submit to the Court’s its reasonable expenses. See 4/15/2025 Order. 7 On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff submitted its reasonable expenses (ECF No. 91), and on May 8 8, 2025, Defendant Bracikowski submitted a response (ECF No. 92). On June 23, 2025, 9 the Court issued an order awarding Plaintiff reasonable expenses to bring its motion to 10 compel in the amount of $2,930.40, holding Defendants Bracikowski and Hales jointly 11 and severally liable for the amount owed. See 6/23/2025 Order. On June 30, 2025, 12 Defendant Bracikowski filed a “response” and “declaration” in response to the Court’s 13 June 23, 2025 order. (ECF Nos. 94, 95.) The “response” requests the Court reconsider 14 the reasonable expense award, and the “declaration” appears to relate to the case 15 generally. The Court construed these filings as a motion for reconsideration of the June 16 23, 2025 order, and provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a response. 7/18/2025 17 Minute Order. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 1, 2025. (ECF No. 97.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 19 A court may properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 21 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Smith v. Clark Cnty. 22 Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). The choice to reconsider an order is left to 23 the discretion of the court. See id. “A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts 24 or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” 25 Brookins v. Hernandez, 2020 WL 1923211, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020); see also E.D. 26 Cal. Local Rule 230(j) (requiring a party seeking reconsideration to show “what new or 27 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 28 shown upon such prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion”). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Here, Defendant Bracikowski requests the court “reconsider [its] decision 3 regarding awarding [Plaintiff] reasonable expenses to bring the motion to compel 4 severely and jointly with Defendant Thad Hales.” Def. Bracikowski Resp. at 2 (ECF No. 5 94). Bracikowski states he timely submitted documents in response to the motion to 6 compel to the court, but it was returned. Id. He also states he should not be held jointly 7 and severally liable with Defendant Hales because Hales has not responded to any 8 matter in the case, and Bracikowski has cooperated with the court and attempted to 9 respond to the motion to compel in a timely manner. Id. Bracikowski’s “declaration” 10 provides general background about his employment and exit from Tri Tool and Enerpac 11 Tool Group, and subsequent employment history, including that he obtained 12 employment on March 25, 2024 with no indication that he is currently unemployed. 13 Declaration of Mike Bracikowski at 2-4 (ECF No. 95). 14 First, Defendant Bracikowski presents no new or different facts or circumstances 15 “of a strongly convincing nature” that did not exist when the Court initially addressed 16 Plaintiff’s motion to compel and determined the amount of reasonable expenses. See 17 Brookins, 2020 WL 1923211 at *1. Bracikowski states he cooperated with the court and 18 attempted to respond to the motion to compel in a timely manner. Def. Bracikowski 19 Response at 2. Bracikowski previously made a similar argument in his response to 20 Plaintiff’s filing regarding reasonable expenses (ECF No. 92 at 2), which the Court found 21 to be incorrect (6/23/2025 Order). As the Court previously stated, neither Defendant 22 Bracikowski or Hales responded to Plaintiff’s motions to compel, which were filed on 23 March 3, 2025. See Docket; Pl. Mots. Compel (ECF Nos. 81, 82); 4/15/2025 Order. The 24 Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel on April 15, 2025, and in its order, required 25 Plaintiff to submit information regarding its reasonable expenses and provided 26 Defendants with the opportunity to respond to the expense submission. 4/15/2025 27 Order. Defendant Bracikowski’s response to the reasonable expenses was dated April 28 28, 2025 and was a response to Plaintiff’s filing regarding the amount of Plaintiff’s 1 | expenses (attorney’s fees); it was not a response to the underlying motion to compel. 2 || (See ECF No. 92.) 3 Second, Defendant Bracikowski has not met the clear error, manifest injustice, or 4 | intervening change in the law standards. See Smith, 727 F.3d at 955. Bracikowski 5 || argues that he should not be held severely and jointly liable with Defendant Hales 6 | because Hales has not responded at all. Def. Bracikowski Response at 2. The Court did 7 | not err by finding Defendants Bracikowski and Hales jointly and severally liable for 8 | Plaintiffs attorney's fees. See Trujillo v. Ali, 2016 WL 6902313, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 9 | 2016); A.F. by and through M.A.F. J.F. v. Ripon Unified Sch. Dist., 2017 WL 1064679, at 10 | “4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). It is also proper for a court to award attorney's fees against 11 || one defendant for time spent litigating against another, unless the plaintiff has spent a 12 || disproportionate amount of time pursuing a certain defendant. A.F. v. Ripon Unified Sch. 13 || Dist., 2017 WL 1064679, at *4. Accordingly, the Court did not err in finding Defendant 14 | Bracikowski and Hales jointly and severally liable for Plaintiff's attorney's fees. 15 Finally, there is no indication that there was an intervening change in the law. 16 | Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 19 1. Defendant Bracikowski’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 94, 95) is 20 DENIED. 21 2. Defendants Bracikowski and Hales are jointly and severally liable for the 22 $2,930.50 owed, which must be paid by Defendants Bracikowski and Hales 23 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order; and 24 3. Defendants Bracikowski and Hales shall simultaneously file a notice with 25 the Court once payment is made. 26 | Dated: August 25, 2025 C i S$ 27 CHI SOO KIM 28 | 5 wit1515.22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE