Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01260/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01260-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB)

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

CHARLES KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHELE R. CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-1260-LB

[Re: ECF No. 30]

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff Charles Kinney moves the court to reconsider its decision to transfer the case to 

the Central District on the grounds that 1) the court should have disqualified itself and 2) in any 

event should not have transferred the case.1The court finds that it can decide this matter without 

oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The court denies the motion for reconsideration.

GOVERNING LAW

A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 

 

1 Motion — ECF No. 30. Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

Case 3:16-cv-01260-LB Document 34 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB) 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1991). Reconsideration is an ―extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.‖ Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted. Twentieth Century–

Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980).

Rule 59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending a judgment. Rule 59(e) does 

not state when a court should reconsider a prior decision, but the Ninth Circuit has stated that 

―Rule 59(e) amendments are 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.‘‖ Dixon v. Wallowa Cnty., 336 F.3d 1013, 

1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

And under Rule 60(b),

the court may relieve a party. . . 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); (3) fraud . . . , 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or 

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed 

or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) 

any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Generally speaking, though, a motion for reconsideration ―may not be used to relitigate old 

matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.‖ Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (referring to Rule 59(e)); 

see also Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1259–61 (9th Cir. 2004) (referring to Rule 

60(b)); Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (interpreting Rule 59(e)). The sole exception is when the 

court has committed ―clear‖ or ―manifest‖ error. Mere disagreement with a court‘s order, however, 

does not provide a basis for reconsideration. See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th 

Cir. 1999).

Case 3:16-cv-01260-LB Document 34 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER (No. 16-cv-01260-LB) 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ANALYSIS

1. Recusal

Mr. Kinney‘s first argument is that the court erred by referring to its prior order transferring a 

different case in 2014; he argues that this is information from an impermissible extrajudicial 

source.2It is not. The court considers other opinions and other orders all the time, sometimes for 

precedent, sometimes for procedural context, and sometimes for persuasive authority. This is not 

unusual; it is ordinary. 

2. The transfer was appropriate

This lawsuit challenges the defendants‘ debt-collection practices against Mr. Kinney in state 

court; Mr. Kinney asserts that they violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.3 ̳Citing 15 

U.S.C. § 1692i, Mr. Kinney argued in his opposition to the motion to transfer and again here that 

venue for his complaint is exclusively in the Northern District.4That venue statute requires debt 

collectors to bring lawsuits to enforce debts against consumers 1) in the case of a lawsuit to 

enforce an interest in real property, in the judicial district where the real property is located; or 2) 

for other lawsuits, in the district where the consumer signed the contract sued upon or where the 

consumer resides at the time the lawsuit is filed. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692i. The court considered Mr. 

Kinney‘s arguments and transferred the case. Mr. Kinney‘s disagreement with the court‘s decision 

does not form the basis for a motion to reconsider it.

CONCLUSION

The court denies the motion for reconsideration. This disposes of ECF No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 Motion — ECF No. 30 at 6 (referencing Order − ECF No. 29 at 4).

3 Complaint — ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 36-77.

4 Opposition — ECF No. 16 at 2; Motion — ECF No. 30 at 6-7.

Case 3:16-cv-01260-LB Document 34 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 3