Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01969-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

SHEILA GIANELLI, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-CV-01969-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT; AND GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THE 

DOCKET

Plaintiff Sheila Gianelli (“Gianelli”) requests that the 

Court reconsider its order granting summary judgment (“Order”) in 

favor of defendant The Home Depot, Inc. (“Defendant”) pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b). Plaintiff 

further requests leave to amend her complaint under Rule 15(b). 

In opposition, Defendant requests that the Court strike several 

confidential documents from the docket. For the reasons stated 

below, the Court denies Gianelli’s motion for reconsideration, 

denies Gianelli’s motion to amend, and grants in part Defendant’s 

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 8
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 strike.1

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Gianelli filed this case on September 23, 2013. ECF No. 1. 

In count one, Gianelli alleged sex discrimination, hostile work 

environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. In count 

two, Gianelli alleged age discrimination, hostile work 

environment, and retaliation in violation of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act. In count three, Gianelli 

alleged sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, and 

age discrimination hostile work environment, and retaliation in 

violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Count four 

alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and count 

five alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

Defendant sought summary judgment on all causes of action. 

ECF No. 39. Gianelli, through her counsel at the time, opposed 

the motion. ECF No. 43. After holding a hearing, the Court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot. ECF No. 52. 

Gianelli’s counsel, with the consent of Gianelli, then filed a 

motion to withdraw as counsel. ECF No. 60. That motion was 

granted by the Court. ECF No. 73. Gianelli, acting in propia 

persona, submitted the pending motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s summary judgment order. ECF No. 64. Defendant opposed 

the motion. ECF No. 74. Gianelli filed a reply. ECF No. 81.

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for August 23, 2016.

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 8
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

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 60(b) states that: 

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); . . . or (6) any 

other reason that justifies relief.

Motions to amend or alter a judgment must be filed no later 

than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Such motions are considered to be an “extraordinary remedy, to be 

used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of 

judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); 389 Orange St. Partners v. 

Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“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.”). Additionally, 

Eastern District of California Local Rule (“Local Rule”) 230(j) 

requires that, among other things, a party seeking 

reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist . . . upon 

such prior motion.”

B. Analysis

1. Motion for Reconsideration

Gianelli argues that reconsideration is appropriate in this 

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 8
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 pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) for “mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, or excusable neglect,” 60(b)(2) for newly discovered 

evidence, and Rule 60(b)(6) under a theory of attorney 

abandonment. The Court will address each theory in turn.

a. Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Neglect

Gianelli’s motion fails to address how this Court can grant 

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1). While Gianelli cites 

evidence that she believes should have been submitted at the 

hearing that she believes would demonstrate her “extremely solid 

operational performance”, she never specifically argues that the 

failure to present this evidence was the result of her or her 

counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. For this

reason alone, the Court can deny reconsideration under Rule 

60(b)(1).

Even if the Court assumes that Gianelli is arguing that her 

counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect resulted in some 

evidence not being argued before the Court, reconsideration is 

still not warranted. First, Gianelli’s counsel represented 

Gianelli well, submitting a thorough and well-researched 

opposition memorandum, multiple declarations, and a request for 

judicial notice. ECF Nos. 43-49. Gianelli’s counsel made a 

competent argument at the hearing on summary judgment. ECF No. 

58. The Court reviewed the materials before it and concluded 

that summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law. 

Gianelli’s counsel’s professional efforts to advocate for 

Gianelli do not amount to mistake, inadvertence, or neglect.

Even if the Court assumed that Gianelli’s counsel made a 

mistake or neglected Gianelli’s interests, the Court would still

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 4 of 8
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

not grant reconsideration. “Neither ignorance nor carelessness 

on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for 

relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 

972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992); Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. 

Brunswick Associates Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993)

(“clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of 

their attorneys”). For all these reasons the Court therefore 

denies Gianelli’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 

60(b)(1).

b. Newly Discovered Evidence

As discussed above, Gianelli cites to evidence that she 

believes should have been submitted in the opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. But Gianelli does not 

contest that these pieces of evidence were undiscovered at the 

time that she opposed the motion for summary judgment. The 

failure to specify what evidence was newly discovered violates

Local Rule 230(j). And all of the evidence discussed in 

Gianelli’s motion and reply was available to Gianelli prior to 

the filing of her opposition to summary judgment. Since Rule 

60(b)(2) requires that reconsideration be granted only if the 

newly discovered evidence, “with reasonable diligence, could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 

59(b),” reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(2) is not warranted.

c. Attorney Abandonment

Finally, Gianelli argues that reconsideration should be 

granted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)and pursuant to the rule 

announced in Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 

2012), that “gross negligence by counsel amounting to virtual 

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 5 of 8
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

abandonment can be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that justifies 

vacating a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).” Gianelli 

argues that her counsel’s decision to inform Gianelli that they 

would seek to withdraw from representing her after the motion for 

summary judgment was decided was a virtual abandonment that

requires reconsideration of the Order. The Court disagrees.

There was no gross negligence by Gianelli’s counsel in this 

case. As discussed above, Gianelli’s counsel adequately and 

professionally represented Gianelli by filing a thorough 

memorandum, several declarations, and a request for judicial 

notice in opposition to the summary judgment motion. Gianelli’s 

counsel also advocated for her during the hearing. Finally, 

Gianelli’s counsel filed Gianelli’s motion for reconsideration 

even after they withdrew because the Court had not yet granted 

their motion to withdraw. ECF No. 64, at 1 n.1. These 

circumstances are significantly different than those in which 

reconsideration has been granted on the basis of virtual 

abandonment. See, e.g., Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 

1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that the attorney virtually 

abandoned his client when he failed to proceed with the client’s 

defense despite court orders to do so). For these reasons, the 

Court denies the motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6).

2. Motion to Amend

Gianelli requests permission pursuant to Rule 15 to amend 

her complaint to include a cause of action for breach of a 

written contract. The Court cannot permit an amendment to the 

complaint after the Court has dismissed the case and entered 

judgment. Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996)

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 6 of 8
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

7

(“[O]nce judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend 

the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first 

reopened.”). Since the Court has not reopened judgment, Gianelli 

cannot amend her complaint, and her motion to amend is denied.

3. Motion to Strike

Finally, Defendant asks this Court to strike Exhibits D-Q 

from Gianelli’s declaration in support of her motion for 

reconsideration. ECF No. 77, at 1. Defendant argues that these 

documents are marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and subject to a Protective 

Order entered into by Gianelli and Defendant. Id. at 1-2. 

Pursuant to this Protective Order, Gianelli agreed to notify 

Defendant if she intended to submit documents marked 

“CONFIDENTIAL” to permit Defendant to determine whether to

request to seal documents pursuant to Local Rule 141. Gianelli 

points out that Exhibits E and N-Q are not marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” 

ECF No. 82, at 1. She states that she was unaware of the 

Protective Order and requests “the court file those exhibits 

under seal as required by the Stipulated Protective Order.” Id. 

Gianelli is correct that Exhibits E and N-Q are not marked 

“CONFIDENTIAL” and are therefore not subject to the Protective 

Order. As for the exhibits marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” the Court has 

not received any formal motion to file the documents under seal. 

Since Gianelli concedes that she did not abide by the Protective 

Order, the Court grants in part Defendant’s motion and orders 

that the Clerk strike from the record and remove from PACER/ECF 

exhibits D and F through M attached to Gianelli’s declaration in 

support of her motion for reconsideration.

///

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Gianelli’s 

motion for reconsideration, DENIES Gianelli’s motion to amend her 

complaint, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike from the 

record and remove from PACER/ECF Exhibits D and F through M

attached to Gianelli’s declaration in support of her motion for 

reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 08/23/16 Page 8 of 8