Verduzco v. Con Agra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC

Opinion

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

8 ARTURO VERDUZCO, Case No. 1:18-cv-01681-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff,

10 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS CONSTRUED AS A 11 CON AGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LLC, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 12 APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF Defendant. / SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 13 (Doc. 107) 14

15 On August 17, 2023, Defendant Con Agra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC (“Defendant”) filed 16 an ex parte application to continue the settlement conference originally set for August 24, 2023 (“the 17 Application”). (Doc. 103.) Plaintiff Arturo Verduzco (“Plaintiff”) opposed the Application. (Doc. 18 104.) 19 Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court noted that the submissions reflected a 20 lack of meaningful meet and confer efforts in accordance with the Court’s Order re Settlement 21 Conference issued on May 11, 2023. (Doc. 105 (citing Doc. 101).) Both parties indicated that 22 Plaintiff submitted a demand to Defendant which failed to include a “written itemization of damages 23 and settlement demand” as set forth in the Court’s Order re Settlement Conference (Doc. 101 at 1), 24 and Defendant did not submit an offer to Plaintiff. (See Doc. 103 at 3–4 (“the parties have not 25 exchanged the required pre-settlement information . . . Plaintiff provided the amount of an initial 26 settlement demand on August 10, 2023, but the demand did not include any of the other required 27 information. Defendant has not yet been able to send an offer to Plaintiff.”); Doc. 104 at 2 (Plaintiff 28 1 has not received any reciprocal counter-demand by Defendant as required by the Court’s Order re 2 Settlement Conference).) Both parties also indicated that they could not attend the settlement 3 conference in person. (Doc. 102; Doc. 103 at 3.) 4 On August 21, 2023, the Court issued a minute order granting the Defendant’s request for a 5 continuance of the settlement conference and vacated the settlement conference set for August 24, 6 2023. (Doc. 105.) The Court directed the parties to jointly propose dates for a continued settlement 7 conference by April 10, 2024, or 90 days before trial, whichever is later. (Id.) 8 On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s minute order granting the 9 Application and continuing the settlement conference. (Doc. 107.) Plaintiff raises arguments of 10 judicial bias and prejudice, and states he will not attend any mandatory settlement conference, 11 exchange dates 90 days prior to trial, or settle with Defendant out of court. (Id. at 3–4.) The Court 12 construes Plaintiff’s objections as a motion for reconsideration of its minute order granting the 13 Application and continuing the settlement conference. 14 A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 15 unless the district court is presented with (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error, 16 or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 17 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). “To succeed” on a motion for 18 reconsideration, “a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 19 court to reverse its prior decision.” Andrews v. Pride Indus., No. 2:14-cv-02154-KJM-AC, 2017 20 WL 117899, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2017) (citation omitted); see, e.g., E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j) 21 (stating that a party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts or 22 circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 23 or what other grounds exist for the motion”). 24 Plaintiff has failed to articulate any of the three bases necessary to succeed on a motion for 25 reconsideration. First, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court committed clear error. As previously 26 explained, Plaintiff submitted a demand to Defendant which failed to include a “written itemization 27 of damages and settlement demand,” and Defendant did not submit an offer to Plaintiff. (See 28 Doc.103 at 3–4; Doc. 104 at 2.) Additionally, neither party was able to attend the settlement 1 conference in person. (See Doc. 102; Doc. 103 at 3.) Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 107) amount to a 2 disagreement with the Court’s order granting the Application. This is insufficient to demonstrate 3 that the Court committed clear error. See Andrews, 2017 WL 117899, at *2 (“‘A party seeking 4 reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation 5 . . .’ of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision.”) (quoting United 6 States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001)). 7 Second, Plaintiff has not shown there is an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, 8 Plaintiff objects on grounds of bias and prejudice. (See, e.g., Doc. 107 at 3 (“It seems with the 9 California judiciary the white, and/or male attorneys can walk in and out of court leveraging the bias 10 and prejudice of the judicial officers.”); id. at 4 (“Since the damage by Honorable Oberto is done 11 towards Plaintiff Arturo Verduzco, the judicial officer must see whether she intends to be biased 12 and prejudicial at jury trial as well, or whether she can maintain her job as a judicial officer with 13 impartiality and fairness.”).) These arguments fail to articulate an intervening change in controlling 14 law. 15 Finally, Plaintiff has not provided any newly discovered evidence. As noted above, 16 Plaintiff’s objections consist of a disagreement with the Court’s ruling. This is inadequate to warrant 17 relief pursuant to a motion for reconsideration. See Andrews, 2017 WL 117899, at *2; see, e.g., 18 Mothershed v. Elwell, 235 Fed. Appx. 683 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding the district court did not err in 19 denying motions for reconsideration where the movant “contended only that he disagree[d] with the 20 district court’s interpretation of the law, and failed to show an intervening change in the controlling 21 law or newly discovered evidence.”). 22 In sum, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate “highly unusual circumstances” warranting 23 reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the Application and continuing the settlement 24 conference. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has 25 not demonstrated the existence of clear error and has not otherwise shown he meets the standard for 26 27 28 1 reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the Application and 2 continuing the settlement conference (Doc. 107) is hereby DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: August 25, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28