Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00821/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00821-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10CV821

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA

BLATT & PENFIELD LLP et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV821 JLS (BGS)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT ESTATE OF

ROBERT COWAN’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

INSTRUCTION AND (2) 

DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OR

CLARIFICATION

(ECF Nos. 70, 93)

vs.

ESTATE OF ROBERT COWAN et al.,

Defendant.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND

CROSSCLAIMS

Presently before the Court are Defendant Estate of Robert Cowan’s (“Estate”) ex parte

application for instruction regarding pending filing date with Alaska Supreme Court and motion for

reconsideration or clarification of this Court’s March 30, 2011 Order (1) denying Estate’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to stay; and (2) granting in part and denying in part

Defendant Oleta L. Cowan Trust’s (“Trust”) motion for injunction. (Mot. Recons., ECF No. 70) Also

before the Court is Defendants Suzanne Dimeff (“Dimeff”) and the Trust’s response in opposition

(Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 80) and the Estate’s reply in support (Reply in Supp., ECF No. 82). The

Court GRANTS the Estate’s ex parte application for instruction and, for the reasons stated below,

DENIES the Estate’s motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. 

//

Case 3:10-cv-00821-CAB-KSC Document 95 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10CV821

BACKGROUND

The present case stems from an ongoing dispute with regard to the claim of right to the late

Robert Cowan’s share of funds earned in the Exxon Valdez litigation. (Order 1, ECF No. 64) 

Since Mr. Cowan’s death in 2003, the three defendants have been involved in probate litigation in

the Superior Court for the State of Alaska. (Id. at 1–2) Relevant to the present motion, in May

2010, the Alaska probate court enjoined Defendant Dimeff from participating in proceedings in

other courts, including this interpleader action. (Id. at 3) Thereafter, the Trust filed a motion in

this Court, seeking to enjoin the Estate and the Alaska probate court from preventing Dimeff from

participating in the present action. (Mot. for Inj., ECF No. 42) On March 30, 2011, this Court

granted the Trust’s motion for injunction in part, (Order 11, ECF No. 64) leading to the current

motion for reconsideration of that order.

LEGAL STANDARD

In the Southern District of California, motions for reconsideration are governed by Local

Rule 7.1(i). See Gallagher v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *2 (S.D. Cal.

2011). Local Rule 7.1(i)(1) allows a party to apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or

any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been

refused in whole or in part.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1). 

Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the sound discretion of the

district courts. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters.,

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)). Generally, a reconsideration of a prior

order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening

change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“Newly discovered evidence” is evidence that was in existence at the time of trial but (1) “was

discovered after trial”; (2) could not have been discovered at an earlier stage by the “exercise of

due diligence”; and (3) “is of such magnitude that production of it earlier would likely have

changed the outcome of the case.” Far Out Prods. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 929 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

Case 3:10-cv-00821-CAB-KSC Document 95 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10CV821

ANALYSIS

Evidence of Defendants Dimeff and the Trust’s appeal of the Alaska Superior Court

Judgment to the Alaska Supreme Court is plainly not “newly discovered evidence” sufficient to

warrant reconsideration of Judge Lorenz’s March 30, 2011 Order. The appeal was filed on October

30, 2011—five months prior to the issuance of the Order, but five days after the motions had been

fully briefed and submitted. (Mot. for Recons. 2, ECF No. 70)

Moreover, the Court declines to clarify the Order as the plain language of the injunction

does not appear to preclude the Estate’s participation in and defense of Dimeff and the Trust’s

appeal of the Alaska Superior Court Judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Estate’s motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00821-CAB-KSC Document 95 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 3