Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05591/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05591-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

** E-filed on 12/2/05 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CITY OF CAMPBELL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-05591 JF

ORDER1 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[Docket No. 53]

On August 8, 2005, this Court issued an order granting the motion for summary judgment

filed by Defendants County of Santa Clara, David Elledge, and Scott Johnson (collectively

“Defendants”). Judgment was entered on August 10, 2005. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiffs City

of Campbell, Robert G. Slade, and Russell and Kathleen Berg (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order and judgment. Defendants filed opposition to the

motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion is without merit.
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

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

Plaintiffs filed their motion pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which states: “Any

motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the

judgment.” A motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) 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.’” Circuit City

Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). None of these

circumstances is present here.

The Court’s first basis for granting summary judgment was that Defendants cannot be

held liable for a failure to pay by the Santa Clara Superior Court. The Court’s order of August 8,

2005 states that the County of Santa Clara “itself had no control over [the funds at issue], and the

County treasurer, when acting with respect to such funds, was acting as an officer of the Superior

Court and had no authority to do anything with the funds except as directed by the Superior

Court.” Plaintiffs argue that the Santa Clara Superior Court in fact has ordered Defendants to

release “the funds being sought herein” and, thus, that Defendants are liable. However, the

orders to which Plaintiff refer, though they involve the City of Campbell, involve neither the

properties nor the property owners as to which funds are being sought in the instant case. To the

extent that these orders have any relevance to the instant case, they show only that Plaintiffs have

an available and adequate remedy in state court.

The Court’s second basis for granting summary judgment was that Plaintiffs lack

sufficient evidence of an essential element of each of their claims: the nonpayment of interest. 

Plaintiffs argue that the Court overlooked evidence in granting summary judgment on this

ground. However, they simply repeat arguments that were made previously and present the

Court with no new evidence.

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s August 8, 2005 order granting summary judgment is DENIED.
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

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

DATED: December 2, 2005

/s/ (electronic signature authorized)

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge
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

4

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Nicholas Damer nicliberty@aol.com, kldamer@aol.com

Michael L. Rossi michael.rossi@cco.co.scl.ca.us

J. Thomas Bowne

2130 East Fourth Street

Suite 120

Santa Ana, CA 92705