Patty v. FCA US LLC
2:16-cv-01332
E.D. Cal.Jun 1, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs David John Patty and Sheila Renee Kirchner sued FCA US LLC in a California "lemon-law" breach of warranty action over a 2013 Dodge Journey (purchase price $36,360.04); the case was removed to federal court.
- In October 2016, FCA served a Rule 68 offer for $90,000; Plaintiffs rejected it.
- In May 2018 Plaintiffs accepted an amended Rule 68 offer for $99,000.
- Plaintiffs then filed a Bill of Costs and a motion for attorneys’ fees; the court granted those requests in part and denied them in part.
- Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Re-Tax Costs, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 230(j) and Rule 54(b).
- The court denied the reconsideration motion on May 29, 2020, concluding Plaintiffs identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error to justify reopening its prior order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs established grounds for reconsideration of the court's prior order on costs/fees | Disagreed with the prior order and asked the court to revisit its ruling | Prior order was correct and Plaintiffs failed to show new facts or law justifying reconsideration | Denied — Plaintiffs failed to show intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error |
| Whether the court could treat the Motion to Re-Tax as a motion for reconsideration and alter a non-final order | Sought re-taxing costs (implicitly seeking reconsideration) | Court has discretion and may deny reconsideration when no new grounds shown | Court properly construed motion as reconsideration under Rule 54(b)/inherent jurisdiction and denied it |
Key Cases Cited
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (courts should not revisit prior decisions absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1989) (law of the case doctrine discourages reopening resolved questions)
- United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court has inherent jurisdiction to modify non-final orders)
- Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252 (9th Cir. 1995) (reconsideration may be denied when it merely reiterates prior arguments)
- Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration is within the court's discretion)