Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

, ' 

!'ILE:[) 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

- '!:,'-:l iT 

XiN!/-\ 

Ttl ! '1':>'1" 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 JOHN COBB, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 v. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, ALEX 

CALDERSON, CHIEF WILLIAM 

LANSDOWNE, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 

and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 13-cv-1353-BEN (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

19 Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

20 Procedure 60(b)(I) and (6), filed by Defendants City of San Diego, Alex Calderson, and 

21 Ramiro Rodriguez. (Docket No. 46.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is 

22 DENIED. 

23 BACKGROUND 

24 Plaintiff John Cobb, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on June 11, 

25 2013. (Docket No.1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed and served a First Amended 

26 Complaint and the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). On July 10,2015, 

27 Defendants filed their third Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

28 Procedure 8 and 12(b)( 6). (Docket No. 39.) Defendants argued that the SAC should be 

13CV1353 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 49 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
1 dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 because it was full of rambling and disjointed 

2 allegations. For no additional reasons, Defendants also argued that the SAC should be 

3 dismissed under Rule 12(b)( 6). On September 11, 2015, the Court dismissed eleven of 

4 Plaintiffs fourteen claims, and ordered Defendants to file an Answer within fourteen 

5 days. (Docket No. 42.) Defendants then asked for an extension oftime to file their 

6 Answer, which this Court granted in part. (Docket No. 45.) Defendants' deadline to 

7 Answer was October 5. Rather than complying, Defendants filed the instant Motion for 

8 Reconsideration. 

9 DISCUSSION 

10 Defendants state that this Court erred when it did not dismiss Plaintiffs Claim 8 

11 for conspiracy under Rule 12. 

12 Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or 

13 proceeding for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;" or "any other 

14 reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(I), (6). But, "[a] motion for 

15 reconsideration is not the proper avenue for raising legal theories that could have been, 

16 but were not, raised before the Court issued the order for which reconsideration is 

17 sought." Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2007 WL 2456223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

18 Aug. 23, 2007); see also Kana Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th 

19 Cir. 2000); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656,665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

20 Defendants ask this Court to reconsider its September 11 Order and dismiss Claim 

21 8. In support, Defendants, for the first time, cite authority related to federal and 

22 California conspiracy claims, and argue that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for 

23 relief. However, the entirety of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) analysis in their July 10 

24 Motion to Dismiss went as follows: 

25 

26 

27 

28 

As demonstrated [under the Rule 8 analysis] above, Plaintiffs SAC is 

replete with rambling, confusing and irrelevant factual allegations followed 

by causes of action that contain conclusory allegations with formulaic 

recitations of the elements of the causes of action alleged therein. Once the 

conclusory statements are removed from the FAC [sic], there are insufficient 

factual allegations upon which a plausible cause of action can be found. 

2 

13CV1353 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 49 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
. . " 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Accordingly, Defendants ask that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs First 

[sic] Amended Complaint for failure to comply with FRCP 12(b)(6). 

(Docket No. 39, Defs. Mot. To Dismiss at 9.) 

Defendants make no argument or provide any explanation for why they failed to 

5 raise these legal theories and arguments before the Court in their initial motion. In 

6 addition, Defendants cite to no new authority-only authority that existed well before the 

7 Court issued its Order. Finally, Defendants present no argument to show that this Court 

8 denied their motion to dismiss Claim 8 due to a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

9 excusable neglect. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion. Defendants must 

10 file an Answer immediately. 

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

12 

13 Dated: October ..di:2015 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

011. '. enitez 

United states Distlict Judge 

3 

13CV1353 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 49 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3