Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00574/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00574-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 - 07cv0574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF YEAROUS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-0574-H

(RBB)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA;

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP;

ADMINISTAFF OF TEXAS, INC.;

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

On July 20, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, having

concluded that the health plan in question was governed by the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., and that the Court

therefore has removal jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 26.) On August 7, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration of the July 20 order along with a declaration from plaintiff

describing the nature of his relationship with Administaff of Texas, Inc. (“Administaff”).

(Doc. No. 27.) This motion was filed timely and with the appropriate statement required

by Local Rule 7.1(i). Defendants Pacificare of California (“Pacificare”) and

UnitedHealth Group (“UnitedHealth”) filed an opposition to this motion on August 31,

2007. (Doc. No. 30.) Also on August 31, 2007, Administaff filed an opposition to the

motion and a notice of joinder to the opposition filed by Pacificare and UnitedHealth.

Case 3:07-cv-00574-H-POR Document 33 Filed 09/12/07 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

- 2 - 07cv0574

(Doc. Nos. 31-32.) As of the date required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(3), plaintiff had not

filed a reply memorandum.

The Court concludes that this matter is suitable for decision without oral

argument. Accordingly, the Court submits the matter for decision pursuant to its

discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration 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, (3) there is an intervening change in

controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration cannot be based on evidence

that could reasonably have been discovered prior to the court’s ruling on the original

motion. See Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 887 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated on

other grounds by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) and Scott v. Henrich, 39

F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994); see also William W. Schwarzer et al., California Practice

Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶ 12:160.1,

p. 12-60. Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the sound

discretion of the district courts. See Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th

Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff’s motion requests reconsideration because “[i]n briefing the issue before

the Court, neither party relied upon, nor even cited, the decision in [Nationwide Mut. Ins.

Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992)].” Plaintiff then offers arguments addressing the

various Darden factors with reference to facts from plaintiff’s new declaration. 

The Court concludes that these arguments are not proper grounds for a motion for

reconsideration. Plaintiff does not argue that there was an intervening change in law,

that the Court committed clear error, or that the Court’s decision was manifestly unjust.

To the extent that plaintiff offers new evidence, it is not sufficient to support a motion

Case 3:07-cv-00574-H-POR Document 33 Filed 09/12/07 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

- 3 - 07cv0574

for reconsideration. The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s declaration and finds that, while

it may offer some new details, it does not substantially alter the Court’s understanding

of the relationship between the parties. Furthermore, this evidence was available to

Yearous and could have been offered during initial consideration of the motion. Finally,

the Court concludes that there are no other highly unusual circumstances warranting

reconsideration.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court submits this motion for decision on

the papers and DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-00574-H-POR Document 33 Filed 09/12/07 Page 3 of 3