Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02666/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02666-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2666 JM(AJB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. RECONSIDERATION 

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Defendant AllyFinancial Inc.,formerlyknown as GMAC, erroneouslysued as General Motors

Acceptance Corporation (“Ally” or “GMAC”), moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b), for reconsideration of this court’s April 23, 2012 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for

Attorney’s Fees (“Order”). Plaintiff opposes the motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to Local Rule

7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

Reconsideration is generally 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. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual

circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Rule 60(b) “provides for th

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6)

‘extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437,

- 1 - 09cv2666

Case 3:09-cv-02666-JM-MDD Document 102 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 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

1442 (9th Cir. 1991).

Here, Ally seeks to resubmit a legible copy of the attorney’s fees provision originally rejected

by the court. Ally argues that its failure to submit a legible copy of the attorney’s fees provision was

the result of counsel’s mistake or excusable neglect. See United States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1130

(9 Cir. 1982) (a party must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” to obtain relief from a

th

judgment). Counsel declares that he was unaware that the attorney’s fees provision was illegible. 

(Kemp Decl. ¶2-3). 

The court notes, moreover, that Ally has mischaracterized the illegibility of the attorney’s fees

exhibit by suggesting it did not realize the copies were “difficult to read.” (Motion at p.2:7). Ally’s

implication that the copies could have been read, perhaps with a little more diligence from the court,

is egregious. Not only was the print excruciatingly small, but when the court pored over the copies

with a magnifying glass the enlarged images were still blurred and illegible. As it turns out, mush

magnified is still mush.

The court denies the Rule 60(b) motion for several reasons. First, Ally fails to demonstrate

the existence of any newly discovered evidence, clear error, intervening change in controlling law or

unusual circumstance warranting reconsideration. Second, it is incumbent upon every party to ensure

the court receives legible copies of, at least, critical documents. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. A party’s

failure to review critical documents prior to filing, does not, without more, constitute excusable

neglect. Third, the Order denying attorney’s fees was also based on the ground that attorney’s fees 1

are not recoverable under Davis v. Ford Motor Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 581 (2009). In its motion, Ally

sets forth no argument contrary to Davis. Accordingly, there are no grounds warranting

reconsideration of the Order. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

The court notes that Ally filed the same illegible copy on two separate occasions. (Ct. Dkt. 1

65-3, Exh. A ¶3(c); 68-2, Exh. A ¶3(c)). Plaintiff also brought the defect to Ally’s attention in its

opposition to the original motion for attorney’s fees. (Ct. Dkt. 93). Ally, alerted to this defect by

Plaintiff, did not address the issue in its reply brief. (Ct. Dkt. 95). 

- 2 - 09cv2666

Case 3:09-cv-02666-JM-MDD Document 102 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 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

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 5, 2012

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 3 - 09cv2666

Case 3:09-cv-02666-JM-MDD Document 102 Filed 06/05/12 Page 3 of 3