Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 33

Cross-motions for summary judgment on ripeness regarding prepayment rights for LIH mortgage insured properties.
Court previously granted partial summary judgment to defendant and denied plaintiffs in Sept. 2012 (Anaheim Gardens).
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing Smith Report data shows prepayment ineligibility; defendant failed to controvert calculations.
Court found plaintiffs properly proffered calculations and shifted burden to defendant to present specific facts.
Court identified five properties where Smith could not conclude prepayment ineligibility and denied reconsideration for those.
Court granted reconsideration in part, granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on properties deemed prepayment ineligible under tests one and two.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Smith Report data sufficient to show futility?	Smith data show futility.	Smith methodology flawed; WPT not applicable.	Yes for some properties; data sufficient.
Did plaintiffs properly raise Smith calculations in proposed findings?	Proffered Smith calculations referenced in_findings.	Arguments were conclusory; no specific calculations.	Yes; calculations cited were properly raised.
Standard for reconsideration under RCFC 59(a)(1)	Exceptional circumstances justify relief.	Not a proper vehicle to re-litigate issues.	Court granted reconsideration in part.

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 265 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (HUD prepayment criteria strict; futility shown)
In re Cygnus Telecommunications Tech., LLC, Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (burden shifts in summary judgment when movant shows essential element)
Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 812 (2000) (limits on reconsideration use; avoid relitigating decided issues)
Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (exercise of discretion in reconsideration)