Project Sentinel v. Komar ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PROJECT SENTINEL, a California non- No. 1:19-cv-00708-DAD-EPG profit corporation, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR TO CORRECT 14 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 JEANETTE KOMAR, (Doc. No. 94) 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 This matter is before the court on plaintiff Project Sentinel’s motion to correct the default 20 judgment entered in this case on June 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 89). (Doc. No. 94.) 21 This matter was closed on July 7, 2021 after plaintiff’s request for dismissal of former 22 defendant Sarah Komar was granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 23 (Doc. No. 93.) On that date, all other defendants in this case had previously been dismissed or 24 judgment had been entered against them. 1 (Id. at 2.) On July 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to 25 correct the June 4, 2021 default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a). (Doc. Nos. 94, 95.) 26 1 On July 6, 2021, plaintiff lodged a proposed default judgment without any explanation as to 27 why this was done or whether any changes were sought to the judgment which had previously been entered by the court on June 4, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 90, 90-1.) 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CORRECT THE JUNE 4, 2021 JUDGMENT 2 Plaintiff’s motion raises two issues with respect to the June 4, 2021 default judgment: (1) 3 it was incorrectly entered as to both defendants Jeanette and Sarah Komar, when it should have 4 only been entered as to defendant Jeanette Komar, and (2) the text-only docket entry neglected to 5 incorporate the terms of the monetary and injunctive relief that this court had ordered (Doc. No. 6 88) and would thus render the judgment difficult to enforce. (Doc. Nos. 94, 95.) Plaintiff 7 therefore requests entry of the previously-submitted proposed order (Doc. No. 90-1) that contains 8 the terms the court had previously awarded as well as an award of post-judgment interest pursuant 9 to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Doc. No. 95 at 2.) 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows the Court to “correct a clerical mistake or a 11 mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other 12 part of the record.” Rule 60(b) also permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or 13 judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 14 discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 15 judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 16 judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 17 Good cause having been shown, the court will enter a corrected judgment in order to 18 correctly reflect the defendant against whom default judgment is to be entered and to incorporate 19 the terms of the relief this court had previously ordered on June 4, 2021 into the default judgment 20 document itself so as to facilitate plaintiff’s ability to enforce the judgment. 21 Plaintiff also seeks to add an award of post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1961, which was not previously sought in its motion for default judgment and thus was not 23 made part of recommended award in either the finding and recommendations2 or in the terms of 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 2 Plaintiff also did not object to the findings and recommendations which did not include this 28 term. 1 the undersigned’s final order directing the entry of default judgment.3 (Compare id. at 2 with 2 Doc. Nos. 85, 88.) Thus, the court construes this aspect of plaintiff’s motion as a request for 3 reconsideration. 4 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 5 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 6 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 7 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 8 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 9 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 10 citation omitted). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 13 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 14 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 15 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 16 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 17 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 18 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 19 3 The court notes that the proposed order plaintiff has now submitted (Doc. No. 90-1) includes 20 other changes to the relief previously ordered by this court (Doc. No. 88) that were not addressed by plaintiff in its original motion (Doc. No. 68). (Compare Doc. No. 88 at 3 (“Jeanette Komar, 21 her agents, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with any of them, is permanently enjoined from discriminating in the rental of dwellings based on any of the 22 characteristics protected by the Fair Housing Act, and the Fair Employment and Housing 23 Act, including the following. . .”) and Doc. No. 90-1 at 2 (“Defendant Jeanette Komar, her agents, employees, and all persons in concert or participation with any of them, is permanently 24 enjoined from committing the following discriminatory housing practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act . . .”) and compare Doc. No. 88 25 at 5 (“For a period of five years, or if sooner, until Jeanette Komar sells all of her rental properties”) with Doc. No. 90-1 at 4 (“[F]or a period of five years, or upon the date that 26 Defendant Jeanette Komar sells all of her residential rental properties, whichever occurs first 27 . . .”))(emphasis added.) The court will not incorporate plaintiff’s proposed changes to the June 4, 2021 order in this order given plaintiff’s failure to disclose those proposed changes and plaintiff’s 28 failure to even address whether reconsideration of the prior order is appropriate in this regard. 1 | previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 2 | not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 3 Plaintiff again presents no argument as to why this change to the judgment should be 4 | made and does not identify any basis under Rule 60 upon which this court should reconsider its 5 || prior order. The court carefully reviewed plaintiffs proposed terms provided along with its 6 | motion for default judgment along with all of the additional briefing, but it does not appear 7 | plaintiff sought post-judgment interest in its prior briefing. Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law 8 || providing a basis upon which the court could alter its prior decision. Therefore, plaintiff's motion 9 | for reconsideration is denied as to the request to belatedly add post-judgment interest. 10 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to correct the judgment is granted in part and denied in 11 | part as outlined above. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, 14 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 71) is granted in part and denied 15 in part as outlined above; 16 2. The court will, by separate order, enter an amended entry of default judgment in 17 favor of plaintiff Project Sentinel against defendant Jeanette Komar, for violations 18 of the Fair Housing Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act which shall 19 incorporate those terms contained in the court’s June 4, 2021 order (Doc. No. 88); 20 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate the default judgment entered on June 21 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 89); and 22 4. This case is to remain closed. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ pated: _ July 19, 2021 Yole A Lara 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28