Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01538/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01538-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GARRY SEABROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BFI BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

CIV. S-04-1538-FCD-PAN-PS

ORDER

----oo0oo----

This matter was referred to the Honorable Peter A. Nowinski,

United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636, et

seq., and E.D. Local Rule 72-302. On May 17, 2005, Judge

Nowinski recommended that plaintiff’s action be dismissed and

ordered he pay sanctions in the amount of $3,612.00. On May 25,

2005, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. By order dated June 28, 2005, the court adopted

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

now moves for reconsideration of the court’s June 28, 2005 order. 

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration of a

final judgment is appropriate only where (1) the court is

presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the court committed

“clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or

(3) there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263. In order

for evidence to be considered "new" for the purposes of Rule

60(b), it must be of such a character that it would change the

outcome of the court’s prior decision. See Fernhoff v. Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, 622 F.Supp. 121, 122 (D. Nev. 1985).

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party

must show: (1) the availability of new evidence; (2) a clear

error of law resulting in manifest injustice; or (3) an

intervening change in the controlling law. See School District

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In the absence of new evidence or a change in the law, a

party may not use a motion for reconsideration to present new

arguments or claims not raised in the summary judgment motion. 

See 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th

Cir. 1999). Similarly, a court does not err in declining to

reconsider claims never pleaded in the complaint. See id.

Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating (1) the

availability of new evidence; (2) a clear error of law resulting

in manifest injustice; or (3) an intervening change in the

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 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

3

controlling law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff is admonished that the

court will look with disfavor on the filing of redundant motions

that do not satisfy Rule 60's requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 3