Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02938-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN FITZPATRICK; and DIANNE 

FITZPATRICK,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On March 16, 2016, twelve days after judgment was 

entered in this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in favor 

of Defendants. (Mot. in Req. of Recons. of Decision to Approve 

Defs.’ Mot. in Req. of Summ. J., ECF No. 143.) Defendants did not 

file an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition in 

response to this motion for reconsideration. Subsequently,

Defendants filed a motion for sanctions, under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 11 and the court’s inherent power to 

impose sanctions. (Mot. for Sanctions under Rule 11 & on Court’s 

Inherent Power, ECF No. 144.) 

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed within 

twenty-eight days of entry of judgment, is considered under Rule 

59(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a 

judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 153 Filed 05/27/16 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

2

the judgment.”); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. 

Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] ‘motion 

for reconsideration’ is treated as a motion to alter or amend 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 

59(e) . . . .”).

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should 

not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in 

the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for 

reconsideration state “what new or different facts or 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 

the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not 

shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–

(4). 

Plaintiff’s motion is defectively filed under the Local 

Rules since he has failed to notice it for a hearing date. See

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b). Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the judgment. For 

these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

II. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Defendants seek attorneys’ fees as a sanction for 

Plaintiff’s alleged improper filing of his Second Amended 

Complaint, arguing in part that Rule 11 sanctions should be 

imposed on Plaintiff. But Defendants have failed to comply with 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 153 Filed 05/27/16 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

Rule 11(c)(2)’s safe harbor provision. “The safe harbor provision 

gives an attorney the opportunity to withdraw or correct a 

challenged filing by requiring a party filing a Rule 11 motion to 

serve the motion 21 days before filing the motion.” Retail 

Flooring Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Beaulieu of Am., LLC, 339 F.3d 

1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff no longer has the 

opportunity to withdraw his Second Amended Complaint, since

Defendants filed their motion for sanctions on March 21, 2016, 

after judgment was entered on March 4, 2016; accordingly,

Defendants cannot seek sanctions under Rule 11. See id.

(reversing the district court’s award of sanctions, where 

defendant “did not serve or file its motion until well after the 

time in which [plaintiff] could correct or withdraw its complaint 

had lapsed”); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 

369 F.3d 385, 389 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the [R]ule [11] 

requires that the party submitting the challenged pleading be 

given an opportunity to withdraw the pleading, sanctions cannot 

be sought after summary judgment has been granted.”). For this 

reason, the portion of Defendants’ motion seeking sanctions under 

Rule 11 is DENIED.

Defendants also seek sanctions under the federal 

court’s inherent power. Unlike Rule 11 sanctions, sanctions under 

this power may be awarded after entry of judgment. See Haeger v. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 1245–47 (9th Cir. 

2016) (imposing sanctions for discovery fraud discovered after 

cases settled under the court’s inherent power), petition for 

cert. filed, 15-1406. However, Defendants’ motion is defectively 

filed under the Local Rules since they have failed to notice it 

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 153 Filed 05/27/16 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

4

for a hearing date before this court. See E.D. L.R. 230(b). Nor 

have Defendants shown that the Court’s inherent authority should 

be the basis for sanctions in the situation where a federal rule 

prescribes the circumstances under which sanctions could be 

imposed. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Dated: May 27, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-02938-GEB-AC Document 153 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 4