Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00970-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

KATHLEEN BALL,

2:04-CV-0970-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT, Educational

subdivision of Sacramento;

EUNYOUNG HWANG, both

individually and in her

capacity as acting Head of the

Los Rios Community College

District Art Department;

MARISSA SAYAGO, both

individually and in her

capacity as Alternate Head of

the Los Rios Community College

District Art Department;

RICHARD BOOTH, both

individually and in his

capacity as Dean of

Instruction for Los Rios

Community College District;

BRUCE WERNER, both

individually and in his

capacity as Vice President of

the Folsom Lake/El Dorado and

Rancho Cordova Centers for Los

Rios Community College

District, and DOES 1 to 1000,

inclusive;

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Through the present action, Plaintiff Kathleen Ball alleges

Defendants Los Rios Community College District (“LRCCD”),

Eunyoung Hwang, Marissa Sayago, Richard Booth, and Bruce Werner

(“Defendants”) injured her civil rights in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(“Section 1983”), and the California Fair Employment and Housing

Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq.

1

Defendants are now moving the Court to reconsider its

earlier Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below,

Defendants’ Motion is again granted in part and denied in part. 

BACKGROUND

The Court has already set forth a detailed factual

background for this action in its Order dated March 8, 2007,

which is incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced

herein. Mem. & Order 2-4, March 8, 2007.

STANDARD

A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless

extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was

clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice.

///

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816,

108 S. Ct. 2166, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1988). This principle is

generally embodied in the law of the case doctrine. That

doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved in

ongoing litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v.

Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1989). Nonetheless, in

certain limited circumstances, a court has discretion to

reconsider its prior decisions. 

A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule

is construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule

59(e). Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if

filed within ten days of the judgment being entered, but as a

Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than ten days after judgment. 

See Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248

F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Since this motion is seeking

reconsideration of a final judgement and was timely filed, the

Court will treat it as a Rule 59(e) motion.

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration

pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate only where 1) the court is

presented with newly discovered evidence; 2) the court committed

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or 3)

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

No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993)(citations and quotations omitted). Mere

dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court

is wrong in its decision are not grounds for relief under Rule

59(e). 

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 6
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

ANALYSIS

1. FEHA Claims Against Individual Defendants

Defendants are seeking an amendment to the Court’s March 8,

2007, Order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment

in favor of Defendants (“MSJ Order”). Defendants seek

reconsideration of that MSJ Order on the ground that the Order

did not address Plaintiff’s FEHA claims as against the individual

Defendants but, rather, only disposed of the FEHA claims against

LRCCD. While the merits of Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion

were generally addressed in the Court’s MSJ Order, Defendants are

correct that the Court did not specifically address the merits of

Plaintiff’s FEHA claims as against the individual Defendants. 

Accordingly, those claims shall be disposed below. 

The California Supreme Court has held that individual

defendants cannot be held liable for discrimination under FEHA. 

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640, 643 (1998). In doing so, the Court

noted “that if every personnel manager risked losing his or her

home, retirement savings...etc., whenever he or she made a

personnel management decision, management of industrial

enterprises and other economic organizations would be seriously

affected.” Id. at 652 (quoting Janken v. GM Hughes Elec.s, 46

Cal. App. 4th 55 (2nd Dist. 1996)). Reno v. Baird did not

specifically address claims for failure to accommodate, and there

is no controlling authority discussing individual liability under

such a claim.

///

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

However, California Government Code sections 12940(m) and

12940(n), which discuss reasonable accommodations, indicate that

“employer[s] or other entit[ies]” may be liable for failing to

accommodate. The plain language of these sections limits

liability to “employer[s] or other entit[ies]” as opposed to

individuals. In light of the policy against holding individuals

liable, and the plain language of the statute, Summary Judgment

against the individual Defendants in this matter was proper and

should have been granted in the first instance. Accordingly, the

Court’s earlier MSJ Order is hereby amended to grant summary

judgment in favor of the individual Defendants on Plaintiff’s

FEHA claims as against them.

2. Reconsideration of FEHA Claims for Failure to Accommodate

Defendants also seek reconsideration of this Court’s MSJ

Order insofar as it denies summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim

alleging failure to accommodate. Pursuant to Local Rule

78-230(k), an application for reconsideration must set forth, by

affidavit or brief, any new material facts and circumstances that

support a claim that the Court’s previous ruling be revisited. 

Here, Defendants do not put forth any new evidence whatsoever. 

Instead, they simply request that this Court revisit its previous

ruling based solely on their disagreement therewith. As noted in

the standard above, mere disagreement with the Court’s conclusion

is an insufficient ground to warrant relief. Thus, Defendants’

Motion to Reconsider the Court’s MSJ Order denying summary

judgment on Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim is denied.

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for

Reconsideration is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s FEHA

claims against the individual Defendants in this matter. 

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is denied in all other

respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 14, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 60 Filed 06/15/07 Page 6 of 6