Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00892-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLLETTE CRAAN, et al., CASE NO. CV F 07-0892 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

RECONSIDER

vs. (Doc. 24.)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiffs Collette Craan (“Ms. Craan”) and her minor son Christian Dewey (“Dewey”) seek

reconsideration of this Court January 4, 2008 order to dismiss with prejudice Ms. Craan and Dewey’s

(collectively “plaintiffs’”) tort claims against defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) arising

from the Lake Isabella drowning death of Casand Dewey, Ms. Craan’s son and Christian’s brother.

Plaintiffs request this Court to amend dismissal of their claims without prejudice on grounds that this

Court lacks jurisdiction in the absence of plaintiffs’ exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Corps

contends that plaintiffs improperly seek reconsideration.

The main grounds for the Corps’ motion to dismiss was that the Corps was entitled to broad

immunity under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (“FCA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., and in particular

under 33 U.S.C. § 702c (“section 702c”). This Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ action due to

the Corps’ entitlement to section 702c immunity. Further grounds for dismissal were plaintiffs’ failure

to exhaust administratively their claims prior to this action and plaintiffs’ failure to allege necessary facts

Case 1:07-cv-00892-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

to permit them to pursue wrongful death claims under California Code of Civil Procedure section

377.60.

Plaintiffs did no oppose dismissal of their action. After this Court’s January 4, 2008 judgment

in favor of the Corps and against plaintiffs, plaintiffs submitted what this Court understands was

plaintiffs’ attempt to dismiss this action without prejudice. This Court found plaintiffs’ submission moot

and without merit given that this Court had dismissed this action and plaintiffs failed to oppose

dismissal.

Plaintiffs’ reconsideration request addresses chiefly administrative exhaustion. Plaintiffs fail to

address section 702c immunity, the main grounds for dismissal. Despite whether plaintiffs had

exhausted their claims, section 702c barred them. Moreover, amendment of dismissal without prejudice

would unduly award plaintiffs for their failure to observe administrative exhaustion requirements.

Reconsideration is appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. School District

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

th

512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate new evidence, clear error or change

in law for reconsideration. Moreover, to the extent plaintiffs’ reconsideration request seeks to alter or

amend a judgment, it is untimely under F.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which requires a party to such relief “no later

than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES plaintiffs’ reconsideration request to amend

dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00892-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2