Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02788/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02788-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy cases and proceedings under title 11

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re RAMIN YEGANEH,

Debtor.

 /

RAMIN YEGANEH,

Appellant,

v.

CHARLES E. SIMS, Trustee in

Bankruptcy,

Appellee.

 /

No. C 06-2788 CW

ORDER DENYING

APPELLANT'S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND GRANTING MOTION

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF

TIME

Appellant Ramin Yeganeh moves for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the Court's May 12, 2006 Order denying

Appellant's emergency motion for a stay of the bankruptcy court’s

final order authorizing a compromise. Having considered the papers

filed by Appellant, the Court DENIES the motion for leave, for the

reasons set forth in the discussion section below. 

Appellant has also filed a "motion for relief" from his

failure timely to file an opening brief. Appellant was granted

similar relief when he initially failed to file his opening brief

in accordance with the Court's briefing schedule. See July 19,

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

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

2006 Order Granting Relief from Failure to File Opening Brief. 

Despite this thirty day extension, Appellant filed his opening

brief another day late. Appellant's attorney explains that last

minute revisions left him alone in the office without the

assistance of a lawyer familiar with electronic filing. Trustee

Charles E. Sims objects to the motion for relief, primarily on the

grounds that Appellant's fifty page brief exceeds applicable page

limits. The Northern District of California's Bankruptcy Local

Rule 9013-1(c), pertaining to appeals to the district court,

provides, "Unless the Court expressly orders otherwise, initial

moving papers and opposition papers shall not exceed 25 pages of

text, and reply papers shall not exceed 15 pages of text." 

Although the Court finds that the most efficient course is to

proceed with the appeal as briefed, the Court admonishes Appellate

that if he desires to filed a brief that exceeds applicable page

limits, he must file an appropriate motion to enlarge. 

The Court also warns Appellant that it may deny future motions

for relief from late filing. If Appellant cannot comply with the

Court's deadlines, he must file a motion to change time in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-3. 

BACKGROUND

In its May 12, 2006 Order, the Court held that Appellant was

not entitled to a discretionary stay of the bankruptcy court's

authorization of a compromise of Creditors' claims, because he had

shown neither a likelihood of success nor a serious and substantial

question on the merits of his appeal. The Court observed that the

bankruptcy judge had amply considered the various factors related

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

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 3

to the reasonableness of the Trustee's proposed compromise. The

Court specifically found that the bankruptcy court had not abused

its discretion by (1) including in Creditors' claim post-judgment

attorneys' fees and costs arising from the underlying State action,

Ingram v. Yeganeh, No. 410586, filed on October 4, 1999 in San

Mateo County Superior Court; (2) including in the claim the

restitution awards in Ingram; and (3) applying a post-judgment

interest rate of 10 percent to the prejudgment interest award and

the $270,000 Ingram judgment. May 12, 2006 Order at 9-13. The

Court also found that Appellant overstated the harm that denial of

a stay would cause him, while failing to show that the bankruptcy

estate and Creditors would not be harmed by a stay. Id. at 13-15. 

Appellant now moves for reconsideration of this order on the

basis of the California Supreme Court's July 24, 2006 decisions in

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC, 46 Cal. Rptr.

3d 57 (2006), holding that Proposition 64 applies to pending

actions, and Branick v. Downey Savings and Loan Association, 46

Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2006), holding that Proposition 64 does not

affect the ordinary rules governing the amendment of complaints and

their relation back (and thus that private plaintiffs who lost

standing as a result of Proposition 64 could amend their complaint

to substitute new plaintiffs). Appellant also moves for

reconsideration on the grounds that the Court failed adequately to

consider the merits of his appeal of the Ingram attorneys' fee and

post-judgment interest awards. 

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

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 4

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or

a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341

(9th Cir. 1980). Jurisdictional defects and frivolous or meritless

claims cannot be remedied by merely moving for reconsideration. 

See United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752, 756 (9th Cir. 1980). 

"`[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new

evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882

F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert

Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues that Californians for Disability Rights and

Branick represent an intervening change of controlling law

justifying reconsideration of the Court's order. Although it is

true that these decisions clarified previously unresolved issues of

California law, neither justifies reconsideration of the May 12,

2006 Order. 

The bankruptcy court and the parties were well aware of the

pendency of these cases at the time the compromise was authorized

and Appellant's motion for a stay was denied. See May 12, 2006

Order at 6 (noting that the bankruptcy court heard extensive oral

argument and requested supplemental briefing on issues relating to

the underlying State action). In deciding to approve the

compromise, Judge Carlson predicted that Proposition 64 would be

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

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 5

held to apply retroactively to pending cases. April 5, 2006

Hearing Tr. 4:2-4. This prediction was proved correct by the

decision in Californians for Disability Rights. He also

anticipated that Proposition 64 would not be applied to preclude

the substitution of those who had suffered actual injury as new

plaintiffs. This was consistent with the California Supreme

Court's holding that the usual liberal standard applied to a

decision about whether to allow substitution of new plaintiffs. 

Branick, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 71-72. The new cases cited by

Appellant tend to support the Court's conclusion that the

bankruptcy court likely did not abuse its discretion. Therefore,

they do not justify the filing of a motion for reconsideration. 

 Appellant does not show any new evidence that was not

available to him at the time of his original emergency motion for a

stay, nor does he show that reconsideration is necessary to correct

a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Instead, Appellant's

motion for leave reargues his original motion in greater detail. 

This is not the purpose of a motion for reconsideration. The Court

will have the opportunity to consider Appellant's substantive

arguments in the context of his pending appeal of the bankruptcy

court's authorization of the compromise. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court DENIES Appellant's

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of its May

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

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 6

12, 2006 Order. (Docket No. 37). The Court GRANTS Appellant's

motion for enlargement of time to file an opening brief (Docket No.

31). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/14/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

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 7

Julie Glosson

235 Pine St. 

Suite 700 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Thomas E. Carlson

United States Bankruptcy Court in San Francisco 

235 Pine St. 

P.O. Box 7341 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341 

U.S. Bankruptcy Manager

U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

235 Piine St. 

P.O. Box 7341 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341 

Case 4:06-cv-02788-CW Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 7 of 7