Palla v. L M Sports, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MANISHA PALLA, No. 2:16-cv-02865-JAM-EFB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING SEAN O’DEA AND EVAN BOTWIN’S JOINT MOTION FOR 12 L M SPORTS, INC., dba RECONSIDERATION LAKESIDE MARINA and dba 13 ACTION WATERSPORTS OF TAHOE; LT LEASING, INC.; PAUL 14 GARCIA; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF LT LEASING, 18 INC.; L M SPORTS, INC. dba LAKESIDE MARINA and dba 19 ACTION WATERSPORTS OF LAKE TAHOE and dba ACTION 20 WATERSPORTS AT LAKE TAHOE and dba ACTION WATERSPORTS; 21 TAMARA HASSETT, individually; and ROBERT HASSETT, 22 individually, 23 Plaintiffs-in-Limitation, 24 LT LEASING, INC.; L M SPORTS, INC. dba LAKESIDE MARINA and 25 dba ACTION WATERSPORTS and dba ACTION WATERSPORTS AT 26 LAKE TAHOE; TAMARA HASSETT, individually, and ROBERT 27 HASSETT, individually, 28 1 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 2 v. 3 EVAN BOTWIN, REGAN ROBERTS, SEAN O’DEA, EFE ӦZYURT, and 4 NICHOLAS CARSCADDEN, 5 Cross-Defendants. 6 AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY 7 ACTION. 8 9 On June 18, 2019, Sean O’Dea filed a motion for 10 reconsideration. Mot. for Reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 292. 11 O’Dea requests, for the second time, that the Court reconsider 12 its ruling on his and L M Sports, et al.’s cross-motions for 13 summary judgment. Id. See also Minutes for 9/19/2018 Motion 14 Hearing, ECF No. 133; Order Granting L M Sports’s Mot. for Summ. 15 J., ECF No. 142; O’Dea’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 153. 16 Botwin joins in O’Dea’s motion. Joinder by Evan Botwin, ECF No. 17 295. L M Sports, et al. oppose the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 298.1 18 For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies O’Dea and 19 Botwin’s joint motion for reconsideration. 20 21 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 22 In July 2016, Manisha Palla went to Lake Tahoe with O’Dea, 23 Botwin, and ten other co-workers (collectively, “the Palla 24 group”). Mot. at 2. The group rented a boat from L M Sports 25 (d.b.a “Lakeside Marina”). Id. The marina required renters to 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for July 16, 2019. 1 sign a rental agreement before taking any equipment out on the 2 lake. Id. at 3-5. The agreement included an indemnity clause 3 and an exculpatory clause. Id. at 3. Only five members of the 4 Palla group signed this agreement: O’Dea, Botwin, Nicholas 5 Carscadden, Regan Roberts, and Efe Ӧzyurt. Id. at 2. 6 While out on the lake, Palla suffered severe injuries 7 following a propeller-strike accident. Palla sued L M Sports, 8 L T Leasing, and the boat’s driver, Paul Garcia. Compl., ECF No. 9 1. In turn, L M Sports and L T Leasing (“L M Sports, et al.”) 10 sued the five signatories of the rental agreement for 11 indemnification. Third Party Compl., ECF No. 17. Özyurt 12 defaulted and Roberts entered a settlement agreement. Clerk’s 13 Entry of Default, ECF No. 51; Stipulation and Order Dismissing 14 Regan Roberts, ECF No. 86. O’Dea and Botwin filed cross-motions 15 for summary judgment. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 52; Cross-Mots. 16 for Summ. J., ECF Nos. 68, 100. The Court granted L M Sports et 17 al.’s motion for summary judgment; it denied Botwin’s and O’Dea’s 18 cross-motions. Minutes for 9/19/2018 Motion Hearing; Order 19 Granting L M Sports’s Mot. for Summ. J. 20 21 II. OPINION 22 A. Legal Standard 23 Under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 24 court may revise a prior order “at any time before the entry of 25 a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ 26 rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b). But “absent 27 highly unusual circumstances,” a court should only reconsider a 28 prior decision when: (1) a party presents the court with newly- 1 discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error or the 2 initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an 3 intervening change in controlling law. Hansen v. Schubert, 459 4 F. Supp. 2d 973, 998 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACAndS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 6 Cir. 1993)). Parties “may not use [] motion[s] for 7 reconsideration to relitigate old matters or raise arguments 8 [they] could have asserted earlier in the litigation.” McMahon 9 v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 2:16-cv-1459-JAM-KJN, 2017 WL 10 3641780 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2017). 11 B. Analysis 12 In February 2019, the Court held a bench trial on the 13 limitation-of-liability action between Palla and L M Sports, et 14 al. See ECF No. 233. O’Dea and Botwin contend evidence 15 uncovered during the trial warrants reconsideration of the 16 Court’s previous ruling on the cross-motions for summary 17 judgment. Mot. at 6. Specifically, they point to Bob Hasset’s 18 testimony that (1) L M Sports required all participants to sign a 19 rental agreement before boating; and (2) Julia Hontos, a marina 20 employee, erred in failing to obtain each participant’s 21 signature. Mot. at 5-6. O’Dea and Botwin argue, “prior to 22 trial, there was no evidence that the Marina viewed it as their 23 duty to obtain all thirteen signatures to finalize the Contract.” 24 Mot. at 7. Indeed, they maintain that they could not have 25 obtained this information at the summary judgment stage because, 26 “through the time of the January 4, 2019 Joint Pre-Trial 27 Statement, the factual issue of whether ‘[i]t was the Marina 28 Defendants’ policy to have all customers [] read and sign the 1 rental agreement’ was disputed among the parties.” Mot. at 6. 2 L M Sports, et al. opposes O’Dea and Botwin’s motion, 3 arguing that the summary judgment briefs and accompanying 4 exhibits referenced the marina’s rental-agreement policy multiple 5 times. Opp’n at 3-4. The Court agrees. In support of its 6 statement of undisputed facts, L M Sports, et al. included a 7 transcript of Hasset’s deposition by O’Dea’s counsel. See Exh. 4 8 at 188:13-25, ECF No. 60-4. In relevant part, it reads: 9 Q: Did you -- is it your company policy back at the time of the accident that everyone was in the boat, in 10 other words, all 13 people who were in the boat, were to sign the rental contract? 11 A: Everyone that was going to be in the boat should 12 have signed the rental contract, correct. 13 Q: And do you have any information as to why that did not occur? It looks like there are five out of 13 14 people actually signed it. 15 A: Correct. You know, my understanding is, Julia, um, did not get everyone’s signatures. She thought she 16 had everyone that was in the boat was my understanding. 17 18 Id. In that same set of documents, L M Sports, et al. also 19 included a declaration by Hontos, the employee tasked with 20 distributing and collecting rental agreements on the day of the 21 accident. See Exh. 16 at 2, ECF No. 60-16. It says: 22 [M]y job duties in the office at lakeside Marina included . . . ensuring that all customers involved in 23 a boat rental transaction executed a boat rental contract . . . . As part of my duties, I had been 24 trained to specifically instruct all boat rental customers . . . to carefully review both sides of the 25 rental contract and to then execute the boat rental contract at the bottom of the first page of the boat 26 rental contract. 27 Id. 28 /// 1 The information contained in Hasset’s deposition and 2 Hontos’s declaration is wholly consistent with Hasset’s testimony 3 at trial. O’Dea and Botwin’s contention that LM Sports’s 4 rental-agreement policy remained a factual dispute “through the 5 time of the January 4, 2019 Joint Pre-Trial Statement” does not 6 change the analysis. See Mot. at 6-7. In fact, had O’Dea and 7 Botwin shown this dispute was material at the summary-judgment 8 stage, they would have defeated L M Sports et al.’s motion. See 9 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56. Neither party did so. 10 O’Dea and Botwin do not identify newly-discovered evidence. 11 Rather, they repurpose previously-available evidence in pursuit 12 of a new litigation strategy. Absent “highly unusual 13 circumstances,” Rule 54 does not afford parties that opportunity. 14 Hansen, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 998. The Court does not find such 15 circumstances here. 16 17 IIl. ORDER 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES O’Dea and 19 | Botwin’s joint motion for reconsideration. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 6, 2019 22 Me 23 Benlek, sunk 24 25 26 27 28