Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01132-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 29:1002 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND 

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and 

CARPENTER FUNDS 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1132-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 11, 2016, forty-one days after judgment was 

entered in this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in favor 

of Defendants. (Mot. for Relief from J. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 97.) 

Plaintiff subsequently filed three amended motions for 

reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 98, 99, 101.) Defendants filed an 

opposition brief in response to Plaintiffs’ first three motions

on May 27, 2016. (Opp’n to Mot. (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 100.)

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Rule 59(e) prescribes: “A motion to alter or amend a 

judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of 

the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see Am. Ironworks & 

Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (“[A] ‘motion for reconsideration’ is treated as a 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 06/06/16 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

motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 59(e) . . . .”). Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration was not filed within twenty-eight days of entry 

of judgment and is therefore not considered under Rule 59.

Alternatively, Rule 60(c) prescribes: “A motion under 

Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons 

(1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the 

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Since 

Plaintiff’s motion was filed within one year of judgment it is 

considered under Rule 60(b), which prescribes:

On motion and just terms, the court may 

relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding 

for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with 

reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, 

released, or discharged; it is based on 

an earlier judgment that has been 

reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies 

relief.

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

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, 

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 06/06/16 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

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, 

or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for 

reconsideration state “what new or different facts or 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 

the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not 

shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–

(4).

Each of Plaintiff’s motions is defectively filed under 

the Local Rules since Plaintiff has failed to notice any of them

for a hearing date. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b). Furthermore, 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from 

the judgment. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motions for 

reconsideration (ECF Nos. 97, 98, 99, 101) are DENIED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-01132-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 3