Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00934/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00934-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 - 06cv0934

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M & F FISHING, INC., and M/V

KOORALE,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv0934 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

RENEWED MOTION AND

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 43]

vs.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS;

GE FRANKONA REINSURANCE CO.

LTD.; and DOES 1-30,

Defendants.

On June 20, 2006, Plaintiffs M & F Fishing, Inc. and M/V Koorale filed a motion to enter

default for failure to file required bond and motion to set bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55 and California Insurance Code Section 1616. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the

relevant legal authority, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety. 

Plaintiffs have now filed a renewed motion and motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

denying their previous motion. Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s and GE Insurance

Solutions have filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. For the reasons set

out below, the Court denies the motion.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00934-DMS-BLM Document 70 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 Plaintiffs also hint that renewal or reconsideration of their motion is appropriate in light of

Defendants’ fraudulent conduct. However, to the extent Plaintiffs are raising this argument, they have

not satisfied that standard. See Cowan v. Strafford R-VI School Dist., 140 F.3d 1153, 1159 (8th Cir.

1998) (citations omitted) (stating relief only available where party proves alleged misconduct “by

clear and convincing evidence[ ]” and “where the party’s misconduct prevented the moving party from

fully and fairly presenting its case.”) 

- 2 - 06cv0934

I.

DISCUSSION

“Reconsideration 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.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to renewal or

reconsideration in light of newly discovered evidence, and because the Court’s previous order is

clearly erroneous.1 

A. Newly Discovered Evidence

To justify reconsideration based on “newly discovered evidence,” plaintiff must

show “that (1) the evidence was discovered after [the judgment], (2) the exercise of

due diligence would not have resulted in the evidence being discovered at an earlier

stage and (3) the newly discovered evidence is of such magnitude that production of

it earlier would likely have changed the outcome of the case.”

Goodworth Holdings Inc. v. Suh, 239 F.Supp.2d 947, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (quoting Defenders of

Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiffs have satisfied the first element of

this test, but they have failed to satisfy the latter two elements. Accordingly, they are not entitled to

renewal or reconsideration of their motion based on this argument. 

Plaintiffs assert Exhibit G to their Notice of Lodgment is newly discovered evidence sufficient

to warrant renewal or reconsideration of their motion. Exhibit G is a one-page document entitled,

“Overseas Jurisdiction Clause.” (Pls.’ Notice of Lodgment, Ex. G.) It states: 

It is hereby agreed that 

1. This Insurance shall be governed by the law of CALIF. whose Courts shall

have jurisdiction in any dispute arising hereunder; and 

2. Any summons, notice or process to be served upon the Underwriters for the

purpose of instituting any legal proceedings against them in connection with

this Insurance may be served upon 

MENDES&MOUNT (ATTORNEYS) 

Case 3:06-cv-00934-DMS-BLM Document 70 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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 - 06cv0934

of NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

who have authority to accept service on their behalf.

(Id.) The document is apparently dated “23/7/64,” and is followed by the reference, “NMA1483.”

(Id.) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel states he discovered this document after the Court’s August 29, 2006 Order.

Specifically, he states he found the document,

between August 30 and September 20, 2006, during which time [he] was preparing to

argue the motion for terminating sanctions against SEAPAC, for failing to produce,

among other items, all clauses forming a part of any non-admitted insurance for

insureds doing business in California from 1997 to the present, before the discovery

referee, the Hon. Wayne Peterson, and the presiding judge, Joan M. Lewis, in San

Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC 826769. 

(Reply Decl. of Patrick. D. Webb in Supp. of Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel does not explain where,

when, or how he found Exhibit G. Nevertheless, counsel’s representation to this Court is sufficient

to demonstrate Plaintiffs discovered Exhibit G after the Court’s August 29, 2006 Order. Notably

absent from counsel’s declaration, however, is any explanation for why Plaintiffs, through the exercise

of due diligence, could not have discovered Exhibit G any earlier. There is no evidence before the

Court that Defendants, or any other party, withheld Exhibit G until after the Court’s August 29, 2006

Order. Indeed, the evidence suggests Exhibit G was part of the “70,000 pages of documents produced

by the domestic broker [SeaPac] in another action in state court,” (id.), which Plaintiffs have had since

at least September 2005, seven months before they filed the present case. (See Docket No. 33 at 14

(Supp. Notice of Lodgment in Supp. of Mot. to Enter Default and to Set Bond, Ex. B at 5).) Plaintiffs

have not shown they could not have discovered Exhibit G through the exercise of due diligence before

the Court issued its August 29, 2006 Order. Accordingly, they are not entitled to renewal or

reconsideration of their motion on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See City of Moses Lake

v. United States, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1182 n.17 (E.D. Wash. 2006) (citations omitted) (stating

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00934-DMS-BLM Document 70 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 Even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the second element, the Court notes Plaintiffs have not shown

Exhibit G is of such magnitude that it would have changed the outcome of Plaintiffs’ previous motion.

See Goodworth, 239 F.Supp.2d at 966. The critical issue in Plaintiffs’ previous motion concerned

where the insurance contract was entered. Exhibit G does not speak to this issue. Rather, it appears

to be a choice of law clause, indicating what law governs the contract. 

- 4 - 06cv0934

motions for reconsideration “are not the proper vehicle for offering evidence or theories of law that

were available to the party at the time of the initial ruling.”)2

 

B. Clear Error

Plaintiffs only other argument in support of their renewed motion and motion for

reconsideration is that the Court committed clear error. Although not entirely clear, Plaintiffs appear

to assert the Court’s finding that the insurance contract was entered in London, England is clearly

erroneous. To prevail on this argument, Plaintiffs must show there is a “definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed[.]” Latman v. Burdette, 366 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing

In re Banks, 263 F.3d 862, 869 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Plaintiffs have not met that standard in this case. As they did in their original motion, Plaintiffs

rely on case law discussing conflict of laws principles, which is not relevant to the issue presented

here, namely, where the contract was entered. See Cal. Ins. Code § 1620(a) (stating bond requirement

does not apply “if the contract is governed by and complies with the laws of the state in which the

contract was entered.”) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ argument concerning what law governs a

contract is equally irrelevant. In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to leave this Court with a “definite and

firm conviction” that it made a mistake in denying Plaintiffs’ original motion. Absent this conviction,

Plaintiffs are not entitled to renewal or reconsideration of their motion on the basis of clear error.

II. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion and motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED: November 21, 2006

DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00934-DMS-BLM Document 70 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4