Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01152/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01152-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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 Defendants failed to identify the rule of procedure

authorizing the instant motion; however, they have discussed the

standard under Rule 59(e), and the court therefore construes the

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PATRICIA WALKER, individually;

PATRICIA WALKER, as Guardian

Ad Litem for LINDSAY WALKER

and ASHLEY WALKER minors; and

PATRICIA WALKER, as SuccessorIn-Interest to FREDERICK

WALKER II, JANELLE WALKER,

NO. CIV. S-03-1152 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FMC TECHNOLOGIES, FMC

FoodTech, FRIGOSCANDIA, and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants FMC

Technologies, Inc., FMC Foodtech, and Frigoscandia’s

(“defendants”) motion for reconsideration of the court’s April

19, 2005 order denying defendants’ motion for summary

adjudication. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).1 In that order, the court

Case 2:03-cv-01152-FCD-DAD Document 56 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 5
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(...continued)

motion as arising under that Rule.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

found that California’s, and not Wisconsin’s, rules of decision

for measuring damages in wrongful death suits apply in this case. 

Defendants now move for reconsideration of that decision arguing

the court committed “clear error” in finding that California law

applies. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.2 Their alternative request for

certification of the issue for immediate appeal is likewise

DENIED.

Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly

in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, the Ninth Circuit has made clear

that 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.’” 

Id. (citation omitted.) When a motion for reconsideration is

based on a claim of clear error, as in this case, the moving

party must do more than repeat arguments made in the underlying

motion. “Reiteration of arguments originally made in support of,

or in opposition to, a motion . . . do not provide a valid basis

for reconsideration.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Doctors Co., 299 F.

Supp. 2d 1131, 1154 (D. Hawaii 2003); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778

Case 2:03-cv-01152-FCD-DAD Document 56 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 5
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

F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).

This is precisely what defendants have done in this motion;

they simply repeat arguments they asserted in the original

motion, arguments which were fully considered by the court in its

order. Indeed nowhere in their papers do they identify any new

facts or issues justifying reconsideration. Accordingly, the

court need not restate its analysis here. There is no basis for

granting the motion for reconsideration.

With that said, the court does note that the entire premise

of defendants’ instant motion is faulty. Defendants wholly

ignore California’s “governmental interest test” for choice of

law questions. In essence, defendants maintain that Wisconsin

law should apply to this case because that is where the decedent,

Mr. Walker, was killed. This argument is directly contrary to

California’s choice of law principles, which this court must

apply. In adopting the governmental interest test, the

California Supreme Court expressly rejected the traditional view

that the “place of the wrong” determines what law applies. Reich

v. Purcell, 67 Cal. 2d 551, 555 (1967). 

[A]s jurisdiction after jurisdiction has departed

from the law of the place of the wrong as the

controlling law in tort cases, regardless of the

issue involved, . . . that law no longer affords even

a semblance of the general application that was

once thought to be its great virtue. We conclude

that the law of the place of the wrong is not

necessarily the applicable law for all tort actions

brought in the courts of this state.

Id. (internal citations omitted.) Thus, the place of Mr.

Walker’s death is not determinative. Defendants’ approach has

been consistently rejected by the California Supreme Court since

1967 and cannot be applied here.

Case 2:03-cv-01152-FCD-DAD Document 56 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 5
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

It is for this very reason that the court likewise denies

defendants’ alternative request for certification of the issue

for immediate appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). To be entitled to

such relief, defendants must show that (1) the order involves a

controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for

difference of opinion; and (3) permitting an immediate appeal is

likely to materially advance the ultimate termination of the

litigation. Loritz v. CMT Blues, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1253

(S.D. Cal. 2003). Defendants’ request for certification fails

most glaringly on the second prong–-there is no substantial

ground for difference of opinion as to whether under the

governmental interest test, California law applies. 

The place of the wrong is not determinative of the issue. 

Rather, the court must consider the two states’ interests in

having their respective laws apply. That determination was clear

in this case; only California has an interest in this wrongful

death matter, as such matters have “little or nothing to do with

conduct,” but rather “how survivors should be compensated.” 

Reich, 67 Cal. 2d at 556. Likewise, while a jurisdiction may

have an interest in having its damages limitation rules applied

to protect its resident defendants from excessive financial

burdens or from exaggerated claims, in this case, none of the

defendants are residents of Wisconsin. Therefore, the court

properly found that Wisconsin does not have a policy interest in

the application of Wisconsin’s rules of decision limiting

damages. As such, California law applies since the alleged

conflict of laws is a “false” one. (Mem. & Order, filed April

19, 2005, at 9.)

Case 2:03-cv-01152-FCD-DAD Document 56 Filed 05/27/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Thus, for all of the above reasons, and those stated fully

in the court’s order of April 19, 2005, the court DENIES

defendants’ motion for reconsideration, as well as their

alternative request for certification of the choice of law issue

for immediate appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01152-FCD-DAD Document 56 Filed 05/27/05 Page 5 of 5