Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00431/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00431-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS BEJAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-431-L(POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[DOC. 25]

On September 13, 2011, the Court granted Defendants City of Chula Vista and Louis

Vignapiano’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed Plaintiff Carlos Bejar’s first

amended complaint (“FAC”) in its entirety. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to

amend. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an untimely second amended complaint (“SAC”), which was

stricken by the Court. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application seeking relief from

the order striking the untimely SAC. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the denial of the

ex parte application. Defendants oppose.

The Court found this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 31.) For the following reasons, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 25.)

//

11cv431

Case 3:11-cv-00431-L-POR Document 35 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4
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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Once judgment has been entered, reconsideration may be sought by filing a motion under

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5

F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,

the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

(9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should

not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a motion for reconsideration may not be

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have

been raised earlier in the litigation. Id. It does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.” See

id. Finally, “after thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for

reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2

(S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009).

Similarly, Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances. Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044

(9th Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir.

1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration based on: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

//

//

11cv431

2

Case 3:11-cv-00431-L-POR Document 35 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4
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

II. DISCUSSION

On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed his SAC, which was stricken because it was untimely. 

(Doc. 18.) Then, two weeks later, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an extension of time

to file the SAC. (Doc. 22.) That application was denied. The Court based its decision on

Plaintiff’s purported misrepresentation and failure to argue the appropriate standard. In that 1

order, the Court applied the Rule 16(b) good-cause standard. Plaintiff now argues that Rule

16(b) does not apply to the relief requested, and that the record does not support the denial of

Plaintiff’s application under either Rule 16(b) or 15(a). In response, Defendants argue that

Plaintiff is mistaken and the Court applied the correct standard, which Plaintiff simply failed to

meet.

Upon further review, the Court reaches the same conclusion as before. Though

determining whether the standard under Rule 16(b) or 15(a) may have been pertinent, ultimately

the Court’s conclusion based on Plaintiff’s failure to argue the appropriate standard stands. In

fact, that basis for denial is very appropriate given Plaintiff’s failure to apply any standard in his

ex parte application. The application simply provided no legal authority or analysis to justify

granting the application. Expectedly, there was no mention of the Rule 16(b)’s good-cause

standard. However, there was also no mention of the Rule 15(a)’s freely given standard in the

application. Rather, Plaintiff’s grounds for the ex parte application were that the untimely filing

was the result of a computer malfunction, and the late filing was his only filing discrepancy. 

(Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. 1:26–28 [Doc. 22].) There are no references to any case law, rules, or

statutes. Moreover, the words “good cause” and “freely given” cannot be found anywhere in the

application. At this juncture, determining whether the good-cause or freely-given standard

applies is irrelevant because Plaintiff applied neither in his ex parte application. Therefore, the

grounds for denial—that Plaintiff failed to apply the appropriate standard, whichever standard it

 Upon closer examination, Plaintiff’s counsel did not misrepresent any circumstances 1

related to the time the SAC was filed.

11cv431

3

Case 3:11-cv-00431-L-POR Document 35 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4
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

may be—remains, and there was no clear error or mistake in the Court’s conclusion. 2

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration, the Court DENIES

his motion. (Doc. 25.) 

However, in light of the circumstances, the Court will permit Plaintiff to seek leave to file

a SAC. Accordingly, if Plaintiff chooses to do so, he may file a motion for leave to file a SAC

no later than April 27, 2012. Plaintiff shall obtain a hearing date from chambers before he files

the motion. Furthermore, both parties are warned that any further failures to follow the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, this district’s Civil Local Rules, the Court’s Standing Order for Civil

Cases, and any other applicable rules will result in sanction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

 The Court notes that Rule 59(e) probably does not apply because Plaintiff does not seek 2

to alter or amend a judgment entered in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In fact, a judgment

has not been entered in this case.

11cv431

4

Case 3:11-cv-00431-L-POR Document 35 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4