Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01520-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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 Eastern District L.R. 78-230(k) provides the procedural

rule for filing a motion for reconsideration of “any motion . . .

granted or denied in whole or in part.” 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES KOTROUS, individually

and doing business as THE

MATTRESS FACTORY,

NO. CIV. S-02-1520 FCD JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

GOSS-JEWETT COMPANY OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on motion for

reconsideration pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 78-230(k)

of this court’s June 26, 2005 Memorandum and Order, filed by

defendant Bayer Cropscience, Inc., (“Bayer”).1 

An order that resolves fewer than all of the claims among

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 160 Filed 08/24/05 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 While the standards applicable to motions for

reconsideration of final judgments or orders under Rules

59(e)(final judgments) and 60(b)(final judgments and orders)

technically do not delimit the court’s inherent discretion to

reconsider interlocutory orders, the court nonetheless finds them

to be helpful guides to the exercise its discretion.

2

all of the parties “is subject to revision at any time before the

entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and

liabilities of all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 18B

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &

Procedure § 4478 (2d Ed. 2005)(while authorized, reconsideration

of interlocutory orders disfavored). Where reconsideration of a

non-final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction

to modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226

F.3d 1042, 1048-49. (9th Cir. 2000), cert denied, 121 S. Ct. 1671

(2001). To succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the

Court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.

Cal.1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828

F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988).

Generally, and absent highly unusual circumstances,

reconsideration is appropriate only where (1) the party presents

the court with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court committed

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, (3)

there is an intervening change in controlling law.2 School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACANDS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

The court has reviewed Bayer’s memorandum in support of its

motion for reconsideration and concludes that reconsideration is

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 160 Filed 08/24/05 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 Indeed, Bayer disagrees not just with this court’s

interpretation of Western Properties, but that of a second judge

in this district who reached the same conclusion in a recent

CERCLA case. See Adobe Lumber v. Taecker, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 15374 (May 24, 2005).

3

not warranted. Bayer interprets Western Properties Service Corp.

v. Shell Oil Corp., 358 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2004), differently

than this court and disagrees with the court’s conclusion that

there is an implied right of contribution in CERCLA section

107(a) independent of section 113(f). However, this is not a

valid ground for reconsideration as the court has committed no

clear error of law.3 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01520-FCD-CKD Document 160 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3