Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID JOHN PATTY, et al., No. 2:16-cv-01332-MCE-CKD Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER
FCA US LLC,
Defendant.
Through this “lemon-law” action, Plaintiffs David John Patty and Sheila Renee Kirchner (“Plaintiffs”) sought redress from FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) for breach of warranty as to Plaintiffs’ $36,360.04 purchase of a 2013 Dodge Journey. The matter originated in the Sacramento County Superior Court and was removed here on June 16, 2016. In October 2016, prior to commencing discovery, Defendant served Plaintiffs with an Offer of Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (“Rule 68 Offer”) for $90,000. Plaintiffs rejected that offer, but eventually accepted an amended Rule 68 offer (“Amended Rule 68 Offer”) extended in May 2018 for $99,000. Plaintiffs filed a Bill of Costs (ECF No. 33) and moved to recover attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 34), which requests were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Re-Tax Costs, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 41. That Motion is DENIED.
A court should not revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was wrong. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is generally embodied in the law of the case doctrine. That doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved in ongoing litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 18 Charles Aland Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478). Nonetheless, a court order resolving fewer than all of the claims among all of the parties “may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1002 (2001). “The major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show the “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j). A district court may properly deny a motion for reconsideration that simply reiterates an argument already presented by the petitioner. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). Finally, reconsideration requests are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiffs do not point the Court to any basis for revisiting its prior decision.
Although they clearly disagree with the Court’s Order, that disagreement is not based on an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 41) is thus DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2020
[1] Prior to removal, Defendant extended a $40,000 settlement offer to Plaintiffs under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
[2] Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, this matter has been submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).