Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02309/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02309-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

----oo0oo----

RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN 

BLANKENCHIP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC; 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

----oo0oo----

Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) seeks

reconsideration of the court’s August 26, 2016 Order denying its 

motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages based 

exclusively on the court’s “inherent power to reconsider 

interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before entry 

of final judgment.” (Citi’s Mem. at 3:16-20.) Citi argues that 

the court failed to consider the evidence “through the prism” of 

the clear and convincing evidentiary burden that governs punitive 

damages. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 

(1986) (“[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge 

Case 2:14-cv-02309-WBS-AC Document 90 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 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

2

must view the evidence presented through the prism of the 

substantive evidentiary burden.”). 

The court was well aware that a jury could award 

punitive damages only upon finding that the plaintiffs

established oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing 

evidence. (See Aug. 26, 2016 Order at 30:14-19 (“Pursuant to 

California Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff may recover 

punitive damages ‘[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation 

not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of 

oppression, fraud, or malice.’” (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 

3294(a))).) The court applied the correct standard and, even 

assuming the court had power to reconsider its prior order, it 

sees no reason to do so.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citi’s motion for 

reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and the 

hearing set for October 17, 2016 on that motion is VACATED. 

Dated: September 20, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02309-WBS-AC Document 90 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2