Grindstone Indian Rancheria v. Olliff ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GRINDSTONE INDIAN RANCHERIA No. 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP and ONE HUNDRED PLUS MEN, 10 WOMEN AND CHILDREN LIVING ON THE GRINDSTONE INDIAN 11 RESERVATION, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 12 Plaintiffs, COURT’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 13 v. 14 TERRANCE OLLIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 With their present motion,1 Plaintiffs attempt to take a 18 third bite at the apple. See Pls.’ Mot. for Relief (“Mot.”), ECF 19 No. 65. This attempt fails. For the reasons set forth below, 20 Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. 21 22 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 On July 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary 24 adjudication on their declaratory relief claim. See Pls.’ Mot. 25 for Summ. Adjudication (“First Mot.”), ECF No. 29. On August 14, 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 November 16, 2021. 1 2019, the Court denied that motion. See August 2019 Order, ECF 2 No. 37. 3 On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs moved again for summary 4 adjudication on the same declaratory relief claim. See Pls.’ 5 Mot. for Summ. Adjudication (“Second Mot.”), ECF No. 52. Citing 6 to “new declarations and the recent deposition of Defendants’ 7 expert,” Plaintiffs insisted their second motion was not 8 identical to their first motion and that summary judgment was now 9 warranted. Pl.’s Reply in support of Second Mot. at 3, ECF No. 10 55. The Court disagreed. See generally July 2021 Order, ECF No. 11 59. Thus, on July 21, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ renewed 12 motion and ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the second motion 13 based on the same arguments the Court already considered and 14 rejected did not violate Rule 11(b)(1). Id. at 8. Plaintiffs 15 submitted their response, see Pl.’s Response, ECF No. 60, and the 16 Court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions, see Minute Order, ECF 17 No. 61. 18 Plaintiffs now bring a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the 19 Court’s July 2021 Order denying their second motion for summary 20 adjudication on the declaratory relief claim. See generally Mot. 21 Plaintiffs contend the Court made an error of law in denying the 22 motion. Id. Defendants filed an opposition. See Opp’n, ECF No. 23 68. Plaintiffs replied. See Reply, ECF No. 69. 24 25 II. OPINION 26 The parties first dispute whether the Plaintiffs’ motion is 27 procedurally proper. Opp’n at 3-4; Reply at 2. Specifically, 28 Plaintiffs bring the motion under Rule 60(b), but Defendants 1 contend that it is an improper Rule 60(b) motion because that 2 rule relates only to final orders. Opp’n at 3. As Defendants 3 explain, an order denying summary judgment is an interlocutory 4 decree and therefore not a final order that can be challenged 5 under Rule 60(b). Id. In support of their position, Defendants 6 cite to Wilkins-Jones v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C-08-1485 EMC, 7 2012 WL 3116025, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2012), and BlueEarth 8 Biofuels, LLC, v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., Civ. No. 09-00181 9 DAE-KSC, 2011 WL 1230144, at *4-5 (D. Hawaii March 28, 2011). 10 Id. Both of these case support Defendants’ position that Rule 11 60(b) applies only to final orders or judgments and that a 12 partial summary judgment order, like the one at issue here, is 13 not a final order. So does the language of Rule 60(b) itself. 14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (“the court may relieve a party or its 15 legal representative from a final judgment, order or 16 proceeding”)(emphasis added). 17 Plaintiffs do not address either Wilkins-Jones or BlueEarth 18 Biofuels, LLC. See Reply. Significantly, Plaintiffs have no 19 response to the BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC court’s clear statement 20 that partial summary judgment orders are “not appealable final 21 orders” because they “do not dispose of all claims and do not end 22 the litigation on the merits.” 2011 WL 1230144, at *5. 23 In short, Plaintiffs use of Rule 60(b) as a vehicle to 24 challenge the Court’s July 2021 Order denying partial summary 25 adjudication is improper. The Court thus construes Plaintiffs’ 26 motion as a one for reconsideration. 27 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly 28 provide for motions for reconsideration. But where 1 reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has 2 “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” United 3 States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). “The 4 authority of district courts to reconsider their own orders 5 before they become final, absent some applicable rule or statute 6 to the contrary, allows them to correct not only simple mistakes, 7 but also decisions based on shifting precedent, rather than 8 waiting for the time-consuming, costly process of appeal.” Id. 9 The Eastern District local rules too permit motions for 10 reconsideration but require counsel to identify “the material 11 facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which 12 reconsideration is sought, including: (1) when and to what Judge 13 or Magistrate the prior motion was made; (2) what ruling, 14 decision, or order was made thereon; (3) what new or different 15 facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 16 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 17 exist for the motion; and (4) why the facts or circumstances were 18 not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 19 230(j). As other Eastern District courts have explained: “a 20 motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion 21 or present evidence which should have been raised before.” 22 United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 23 (E.D. Cal. 2001)(internal citations omitted). “A party seeking 24 reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 25 Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments 26 considered by the court before rendering its original decision 27 fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” Id. (internal 28 citations and quotation marks omitted). 1 Here, Plaintiffs fails to carry their burden to show 2 reconsideration is warranted. Plaintiffs present only one ground 3 not before the Court when it ruled on Plaintiffs’ second motion 4 for summary judgment: the Oregon Court of Appeals case Dykes v. 5 Arnold, 204 Or.App. 154 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). See Mot. at 12-13; 6 see also Exh. to Mot., ECF No. 65-1. But even though Plaintiffs 7 may have recently discovered this case, Dykes is a 2006 case, 8 decided well before the Court issued its July 2021 Order denying 9 summary adjudication. Plaintiffs therefore had the opportunity 10 to raise Dykes in its previous motion. They failed to do so. 11 See Second Mot.; see also Reply in support of Second Mot. That 12 Plaintiffs may have discovered this case for the first time 13 recently is of no import. The inquiry under the local rule is 14 whether “new facts or circumstances… which did not exist at the 15 time of the prior motion” are present. E.D. Cal. Local R. 16 230(j)(emphasis added). Here, Dykes clearly existed at that 17 time. Further, an Oregon Court of Appeals decision, Dykes is not 18 binding authority. 19 Nor does the substance of Dykes support Plaintiffs’ position 20 that the Court that it erred in denying their motion. See 204 21 Or.App. 154. In Dykes, plaintiff-landowners brought an ejectment 22 action against the defendant-landowner who owned adjacent lots of 23 land over a disputed strip of land between their lots. Id. As 24 relevant here, the Dykes Court did not rely upon 43 U.S.C. 25 Section 752 in affirming the lower court’s decision to dismiss 26 the ejectment action, quiet title to defendant, and declare 27 plaintiffs had a perpetual easement to defendant’s adjacent 28 property. Id. at 179 (stating “federal law says nothing-one way 1 or the other”). Because the Dykes Court did not rely upon 2 Section 752 to reach its decision, that case does not support 3 Plaintiffs’ legal argument here that Section 752 or Dykes 4 interpretation of Section 752 controls this case. See Reply at 5 2-3. 6 In sum, in addition to being presented in an untimely 7 manner, Dykes is not controlling caselaw warranting reversal of 8 the Court’s prior Order. Dykes does not eliminate the disputed 9 issues of material fact identified by the Court in its prior 10 Order either. See July 2021 Order at 6-7. 11 Lastly, as to (1) the “new” testimony from Defendants’ 12 expert and (2) the Section 752 arguments Plaintiffs raise in 13 their motion and reply, both were before the Court when it denied 14 Plaintiffs’ motion in July. See Second Mot. Thus, neither 15 constitutes a new fact or circumstance that was not present at 16 the time of the prior motion. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(j). 17 Rather, both represent “recapitulation of the . . . arguments 18 considered by the court” previously. Westlands Water Dist., 134 19 F.Supp.2d at 1131. This too is insufficient to warrant 20 reconsideration. 21 22 III. ORDER 23 For these reasons, Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court 24 to reconsider its prior decision. Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. 25 The Court further orders Plaintiffs’ counsel to submit a 26 declaration showing cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be 27 imposed. Plaintiffs third motion concerning the same issues, on 28 its face, arguably has been presented for the improper purpose of nn ee een meen enn nnn en nn an nn nn enn OS OS ON 1 causing unnecessary delay and needlessly increasing the cost of 2 litigation. Defendants are invited to submit a declaration with 3 supporting documentation setting forth the attorneys’ fees 4 incurred in opposing this most recent motion. Both submissions 5 should be filed by December 3, 2021. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 24, 2021 kA Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28