Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Lantz Arnell submitted a Request for Court Order for Bank's Surveillance Records and Request for Enlargement of Time to Serve Jack Lieb [doc. no. 21], which was filed nunc pro tunc to July 7, 2008. The Court denied Plaintiff's Request on July 17, v. JACK LIEB ESQ. & ASSOC.; JUDGE WILLIAM MCADAM, LANTZ ARNELL, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv0441-LAB (RBB) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER FOR BANK'S SURVEILLANCE RECORDS [DOC. NO. 25] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2008, finding the bank surveillance records were not relevant to the issues in this case and would not assist Arnell in locating Defendant Lieb for service of process. (Order Denying Req. for Plaintiff subsequently

Bank Surveillance Records [doc. no. 22] 2.)

submitted a Motion for Reconsideration [doc. no. 25], which was filed nunc pro tunc to July 28, 2008. The Court directed

Defendants to file any opposition to the Motion by August 8, 2008,

1

08cv0441-LAB(RBB)

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

but to date no opposition has been filed. [doc. no. 26].)

(Mins. Aug. 1, 2008

In the Ninth Circuit, a motion for reconsideration has two parts: "First, a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate

reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, a motion of reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp. "Motions for reconsideration should be

429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996).

granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Pennsylvania Ins.

Guaranty Assoc. v. Trabosh, 812 F. Supp. 522, 524 (E.D. Pa. 1992). "Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration." Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. HT&T Co., Further, "[a] motion

363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005).

for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court `to rethink what the court has already thought through ­- rightly or wrongly.'" United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). But, "if the court has made an

apparent error of law . . . [it] has the power under Rule 60(b)(1) to grant relief from that error." Id. (citing Liberty Mut. Ins.

Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 440 (9th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider it's Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which provides for reconsideration in cases of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); (Pl.'s Mem. This rule allows a judge to

P. & A. Supp. Mot. for Recons. 1).

2

08cv0441-LAB(RBB)

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reconsider a prior ruling "where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order." Cashner v.

Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Kingvision Pay-Per-View v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that a court can correct its own mistakes via Rule 60(b)(1)). Arnell asserts that the Court erred because its

Order was "a manifest showing of a failure to consider the material facts." (Mot. for Recons. 1-2.) He argues the Court was incorrect

in finding the bank surveillance videotapes are not relevant to the claims presented in Arnell's Complaint because the tapes are evidence of identity theft and fraud, which are the same types of claims made in the Complaint. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's prior order is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Arnell does not

Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988)

point to any clear errors of substantive law that would warrant reconsideration, instead pointing only to his disagreement with the Court's conclusion that the bank surveillance records are not relevant. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1244

(10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted) (stating that Rule 60(b)(1) provides an avenue for relief based on mistake of law only where the court commits "obvious errors of law, apparent on the record[]"). Accordingly, reconsideration of the Court's Order is

not appropriate. The Court also notes that even if it were to reconsider its prior ruling, Plaintiff has not produced "facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Donaldson, 947 F. Supp. at 430. The Court is still of

3

08cv0441-LAB(RBB)

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the opinion that bank surveillance tapes which may show the image of an individual who Plaintiff believes to be impersonating a Defendant in this action are not reasonably related to the claims in the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

August 18, 2008

____________________________ Ruben B. Brooks United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Judge Burns All Parties of Record

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\ARNELL441\OrderDenyingReconsideration.wpd

4

08cv0441-LAB(RBB)