Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00296/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00296-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 * These motions were determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTA FIRE INSURANCE CORP., ) 02:04-cv-0296-GEB-PAN

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC.; ) 

PAUL MCNEECE ROESSER; RONALD )

CLARK COLTON; STEPHANIE )

FRANCIS SMITH; CARL FRANK; )

LAW OFFICES OF COLTON )

& ROESSER, )

)

 Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff and Defendant Insurance Ventures, Inc.

(“Defendant”) have each separately moved for reconsideration of the

Court’s Order filed February 9, 2006, which granted in part and denied

in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Both motions were

filed on February 24, 2006. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order set

December 21, 2005, as the last day for hearing law and motion matters. 

(Order filed Sept. 29, 2005.) The motions for reconsideration were

filed after the deadline for hearing law and motion matters, and are

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 215 Filed 03/01/06 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

1 While the standards applicable to motions for reconsideration

of final judgment or orders do not technically limit the Court’s

inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders, the Court nonetheless

finds them helpful guides to the exercise of its discretion.

2

therefore denied as untimely. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court must

consider these late motions, they are denied for the reasons set forth

below.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and are

generally not granted “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 Street

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing School

Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).1

Motions for reconsideration are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not introduced in their briefs, Northwest Acceptance Corp.

v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988), nor is

it the place to “rehash” arguments already presented. Costello v.

United States Government, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991).

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues reconsideration is warranted because: (1)

the Court erred in determining that Defendants Ronald Clark Colton

(“Colton”) and Paul McNeece Roesser (“Roesser”) were not fiduciaries

of Plaintiff under California Insurance Code section 1733 (“Section

1733") and (2) newly discovered evidence establishes Colton and

Roesser were Plaintiff’s fiduciaries. Defendant argues

reconsideration is warranted because the Court granted portions of

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment despite “questions of fact”

raised by its opposition.

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 215 Filed 03/01/06 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

Plaintiff argues the Court erred in deciding Colton and

Roesser were not fiduciaries of Plaintiff under Section 1733. Section

1733 only applies to a “person acting as an insurance agent, broker,

or solicitor . . . .” Cal. Ins. Code § 1733. Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment did not present an argument to establish that Section

1733 applied to either Colton or Roesser. However, in its motion for

reconsideration Plaintiff presents arguments supporting the

application of Section 1733 to Colton and Roesser. A court need “not

consider . . . arguments presented for the first time in a motion for

reconsideration.” Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1239 n.5 (9th Cir.

1999); see also Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404

(7th Cir. 1986) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is an improper

vehicle to introduce evidence previously available or to tender new

legal theories.”). Therefore, Plaintiff has not presented a valid

basis for reconsideration.

Plaintiff also argues that new evidence establishes Colton

and Roesser were its fiduciaries. A party moving for reconsideration

based on new evidence bears the burden of demonstrating that the

evidence: “(1) is truly newly-discovered; (2) could not have been

discovered [before the filing of the original motion] through due

diligence; and (3) is of such material and controlling nature that it

demands a probable change in the outcome.” United States v. Wetlands

Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 n.45 (E.D. Cal. 2001)

(internal citations omitted). Plaintiff has not shown that the new

evidence on which it relies could not have been discovered through due

diligence before its motion for summary judgment was made. Therefore,

this basis for reconsideration is also invalid.

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 215 Filed 03/01/06 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

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is premised on its

contention that the evidence presented in opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion raised “questions of fact,” which make the Court’s Order

incorrect. “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of . . .

arguments considered by the court before rendering its original

decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” Westlands Water

Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d at 1131. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for

reconsideration is denied.

Since the deadline for filing law and motion matters has

passed, no further motions for reconsideration of these matters shall

be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 1, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 215 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 4