Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02832/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02832-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM D. MCCANN, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WORLDCOM, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-02832 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR NEW

TRIAL AND MOTION TO VACATE

JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for

Motion to Vacate Judgment.” Having carefully considered the papers submitted by the

parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and

DENIES the motion for the reasons stated below.

McCann brings this motion as one for a new trial, presumably pursuant to the

standards in Rule 59(a). However, no trial took place in this matter and therefore the correct

procedure for bringing the motion is either as a motion to alter judgment under Rule 59(e) or

as a motion for relief from judgment for reason of newly discovered evidence under Rule

60(b)(2). However, regardless of which rule applies, the standard to be applied is

substantially the same. See Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990)

(per curiam) (stating that the same standard applies to motions on the ground of newly

discovered evidence whether they are made under Rule 59 or Rule 60(b)(2)). Plaintiff must 

Case 3:04-cv-02832-CRB Document 62 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

show that the evidence “(1) existed at the time of the trial, (2) could not have been

discovered through due diligence, and (3) was of such magnitude that production of it earlier

would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” Id. (citation and internal

quotations omitted).

McCann has failed to show the purportedly “new” evidence could not have been

discovered prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. The new evidence, which consists solely

of McCann’s own personal phone records, were clearly accessible to him prior to this Court’s

entry of judgment on April 14, 2005. This case was filed seven months prior to that date and

the phone records are apparently over three years old. That Mr. McCann was purportedly

unable to “discover” the records until April 14 only reveals a lack of diligence. Not only did

McCann fail to locate his own phone records by April 14, he also did not notify this Court of

his efforts to locate them or in any other way respond to the defendants’ supplemental brief

in support of their motion to dismiss--which he was instructed to do no later than March 25. 

The Court allowed him three weeks beyond the deadline to make an argument in support of

his standing to bring this action, but he made none and sought no leave from the Court for

more time.

Even if the Court were to excuse McCann’s lack of diligence and accept that his

phone records are new evidence, they would still have no effect on the outcome of his case. 

As defendant points out, the phone records do nothing to support plaintiff’s standing and

instead refute it. They show that Pacific Bell--not WorldComm or Verizon--was the entity

that charged him for the calls upon which his suit is based. Thus, the records merely

reinforce the Court’s determination that “there is no discernible connection between the

alleged conspiracy and the alleged harm done to plaintiff.” April 13, 2005 Order (Docket

No. 53) at 2. 

McCann also asserts that the judgment should be vacated because the Court erred by

entering judgment without allowing him to amend his complaint. He seeks to amend the

complaint in order to substitute a new plaintiff that would be subject to the contracts the State

attached to its motion. See Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial at 5. According to McCann,

Case 3:04-cv-02832-CRB Document 62 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\2832\order 2.wpd 3

this would cure the lack of standing. A plaintiff without standing to bring a particular cause

of action, however, also lacks standing to amend the complaint to cure the defect in standing,

even where the amendment is a matter of course. See Summit Office Park, Inc. v. U.S. Steel

Corp., 639 F.2d 1278, 1282 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[W]here a plaintiff never had standing to assert

a claim against the defendants, it does not have standing to amend the complaint and control

the litigation by substituting new plaintiffs, a new class, and a new cause of action.”). 

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would transform this case into a new lawsuit altogether, and

thus is not within the scope of Rule 15. See id. (“A pleading which abandons the original

plaintiff and class and asserts new claims upon which the original plaintiff and class could

not recover, has the characteristics of a new lawsuit rather than an amended complaint.”).

Accordingly, the motion to amend or alter judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ motion

for sanctions are also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2005

 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02832-CRB Document 62 Filed 06/07/05 Page 3 of 3