Winfield v. Sigala

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00783
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. WINFIELD, Case No.: 23-CV-783 JLS (BGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION

14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS SIGALA (ECF No. 31) GONZALEZ, PULIDO, and NAVARRO, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael J. Winfield’s Request for Permission 18 to File Motion for Judicial Notice, which, for reasons that will become clear, the Court 19 liberally construes as a Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot. for Recons.,” ECF No. 31). As 20 detailed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 21 BACKGROUND1 22 On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Challenge Settlement Agreement 23 (“Settlement Mot.,” ECF No. 22). In said Motion, Plaintiff sought to reopen the above- 24 captioned case by (1) raising a state-law rescission claim as to the settlement agreement 25 that brought this action to a close and/or (2) securing relief from final judgment pursuant 26 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See generally Settlement Mot. 27

28 1 Two weeks later, the Court denied the Settlement Motion after concluding Plaintiff 2 could not prevail under either of the above theories. As an initial matter, the Court 3 determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s rescission claim in light 4 of the principles announced in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 5 511 U.S. 375 (1994). See Order at 4–5. Next, the Court found Plaintiff’s Rule-60(b) 6 assertions were both contradicted by the record and, in any event, insufficient to justify 7 relief from judgment. See id. at 5–7. 8 Since his Settlement Motion was denied, Plaintiff has continued his quest to revive 9 this case. He first filed two documents, which were docketed, respectively, as a motion for 10 judicial notice (ECF No. 27) and a reply in support of his Settlement Motion (ECF No. 29). 11 Both submissions were, however, stricken from the Docket as improperly filed on the 12 ground that this case was already closed. See ECF Nos. 28, 30. 13 Presently, Plaintiff argues the Court should have accepted these filings and construed 14 them as a request to reconsider the Order. See Mot. for Recons. at 2. To that end, he has 15 attached the previously stricken documents to the instant Motion. See ECF No. 31-1. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will accept his Motion and construe it as 18 seeking reconsideration. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 19 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions 20 as well as complaints.”). 21 In this District, a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or 22 any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has 23 been refused in whole or in part.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(1). “In resolving motions for 24 reconsideration, courts often look to the standard for relief from final judgment set forth in 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) . . . .” Evanston Ins. Co. v. Venture Point, 26 LLC, No. 2:20-CV-01783-KJD-EJY, 2021 WL 5500486, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 23, 2021). 27 “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered 28 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 1 law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 2 McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)). 3 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 4 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 5 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Accordingly, a motion for 6 reconsideration does not provide “another opportunity for the losing party to make its 7 strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp previously unmeritorious arguments.” 8 Reeder v. Knapik, No. CIV 07-CV-362-L LSP, 2007 WL 2088402, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 9 July 18, 2007). Rather, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed 10 absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” 11 Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing 12 Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)). And ultimately, 13 whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the 14 district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s recent submissions, the Court sees no grounds for 16 reconsideration here. Plaintiff relies on the same points he raised in the Settlement Motion, 17 which itself dooms his bid for reconsideration. See, e.g., Banks v. ACS Educ. Corp., 18 No. 10CV1886 AJB CAB, 2011 WL 3794923, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011) (“Nor does 19 reassertion of arguments already extended and rejected provide an appropriate justification 20 for reconsidering the Court’s Order.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s recycled arguments remain 21 as unpersuasive as before. He principally contends California law “requires a signed 22 settlement agreement,” and no such agreement exists here because he was under duress. 23 See ECF No. 31-1 at 2–3. But this thinly veiled attempt at reanimating his rescission claim 24 has no bearing on the Court’s prior decision; the Court denied the Settlement Motion’s 25 contract claim on jurisdictional grounds, not on the merits. See Order at 4–5. 26 More to the point, nothing in the Motion for Reconsideration points to an intervening 27 change in controlling law, constitutes newly discovered evidence, nor suggests the Court 28 committed clear error. And a motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely because 1 || Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, is frustrated by the Court’s application of the facts 2 binding precedent, or disagrees with the Court’s ultimate decision. See, e.g., Bradford 3 Khamooshian, No. 3:17-CV-2053-BAS-AHG, 2019 WL 5061316, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 4 || Oct. 9, 2019) (“[M]Jere disagreement with the Court’s decision is not sufficient grounds for 5 || reconsideration.”); Nat’! Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Desert Best Enters., L.L.C., No. CV- 6 || 13-01138-PHX-SRB, 2013 WL 12190513, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2013) (“Motions for 7 ||reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court ‘to rethink what the court has already 8 || thought through,’ merely because a plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision.” (quoting 9 || United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998))). 10 CONCLUSION 11 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 12 (ECF No. 31). No more filings will be accepted in this closed case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||Dated: August 20, 2024 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 15 on. Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28