Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00202/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INES LOPEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

ORDER DENYING MOTION [Doc. 

16] FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

Order (the “Order” [Doc. 15]) denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The 

parties are aware of the factual background of this case, which was addressed in the

Order. Of relevance to the present motion, the Court’s Order held that (1) Plaintiffs 

adequately alleged that municipal Defendants were on notice of a pattern of similar 

constitutional violations and (2) Decedent’s absent children are not necessary parties for 

purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. (See Order.) Defendants seek reconsideration of these 

two holdings. (See Mot. [Doc. 16].) 

A district court has the power to reconsider and amend a previous order. See Fed. 

R. Civ P. 59(e). However, a district court generally should not grant a motion for 

reconsideration unless (1) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence, (2) there 

Case 3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

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

is an intervening change in the controlling law or (3) the original ruling was clearly 

erroneous. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Defendants’ first argument is that it was clear error for the Court to conclude that 

Plaintiff had accurately alleged a “pattern of similar constitutional violations” because 

Plaintiffs have not alleged that any similar previous constitutional violations led to 

judgments. In doing so, Defendants rehash the exact same arguments the Court already 

gave full consideration to in its previous Order. (See Order 10:5–20.) 

The Court still finds Defendants’ argument unpersuasive. To wit, from the fact 

that allegations of a “pattern of constitutional violations”1are necessary to sustain a cause 

of action for municipal liability based on a failure to train, it does not follow that the 

individual constitutional violations that make up said pattern must have triggered 

judgments in previous judicial proceedings. More concisely, an action that violates the 

Constitution is not any less unconstitutional because it has not been the subject of a 

previous lawsuit. See Nesmith v. Cnty. of San Diego, No 15-cv-629-JLS, Slip. Op. at 2–5

(S.D. Cal. March 30, 2017) (same holding). 

Next, Defendants argue that the Court committed clear error in concluding that the 

Decedent’s absent children are not required parties for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. 

Defendants contend the absent children are required because, if they are not joined, 

Defendants could be subject to inconsistent adjudications on some of Plaintiffs’ claims—

for example: by winning this case and losing a future case brought by a currently absent 

child alleging the same claims and facts.

The problem with this argument is that it complains of inconsistent adjudications 

rather than inconsistent obligations. The Ninth Circuit has explained that 

[i]nconsistent obligations” are not ... the same as inconsistent adjudications 

or results. Inconsistent obligations occur when a party is unable to comply 

with one court's order without breaching another court's order concerning the 

same incident. Inconsistent adjudications or results, by contrast, occur when 

 

1 Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011).

Case 3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA

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

a defendant successfully defends a claim in one forum, yet loses on another 

claim arising from the same incident in another forum.

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty., 547 F.3d 962, 976 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Delgado v. Plaza Las Americas, Inc., 139 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998). 

Unlike the possibility of inconsistent obligations, the mere possibility of inconsistent 

adjudications does not render an absent party necessary. Id. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00202-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3