Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04713/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04713-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER G. RAMOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PATRICIA R. FABROS,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Docket No. 90)

Plaintiffs Jennifer G. Ramos, Moises G. Ramos, Jr., Catherine R. Volkman and Susan 

Nellie R. Nisperos move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting 

Defendants Thomas G. Ramos, Helen R. Instrella and Timothy G. Caoile’s motions to dismiss.

1

 

Because Plaintiffs have not shown that the fact and law they now present to the court were not 

known to them in the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the court’s order, Plaintiffs’

motion is DENIED.

I.

The facts and procedural history of this case are described in the court’s prior order2and 

will not be fully recapitulated here.

II.

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the 

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 

 

1

See Docket No. 90.

2

See Docket No. 89 at 1-4.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 91 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

conservation of judicial resources.”3 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b) requires that to obtain leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration, the moving party must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory 

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the 

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know 

such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order;

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time 

of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

“Indeed, 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.”4“A Rule 59(e) motion 

may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”5

III.

Applying the standard as set forth above, the court finds that leave for reconsideration is 

inappropriate.

First, Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the court’s holding that their claim for breach of 

fiduciary duty fails against Thomas Ramos.

6

The court held that Plaintiffs had not stated a claim 

that Thomas Ramos had a fiduciary relationship with them, because the transfer certificate of title 

that Plaintiffs rely on as proof of the fiduciary relationship says that Fabros, not Thomas Ramos, 

 

3 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted).

4

Id.

5

Id.

6

See Docket No. 90 at 3-4; Docket No. 89 at 6-7.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 91 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

was Plaintiffs’ attorney-in-fact.7 Plaintiffs now present a 2009 lease contract showing that 

Thomas Ramos represented various heirs of the heirs of BB George, including “the Heirs of the 

Late Nellie George Ramos”—i.e., Plaintiffs8—and entered into a lease contract with Chevron 

Philippines Inc. regarding the disputed gasoline station property.9 Plaintiffs argue that this is a 

new material fact showing the existence of a fiduciary relationship between them and Thomas 

Ramos.10 Plaintiffs also cite Cal. Civ. Code § 2351 and Cal. Prob. Code § 4014 in support of their 

argument that as administrator of BB George’s estate, Thomas Ramos had a fiduciary duty to the 

heirs of BB George’s estate, i.e. Plaintiffs.

While the 2009 lease contract may support Plaintiffs’ claim that Thomas Ramos had and 

breached a fiduciary relationship with them, this evidence comes too late. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b) 

requires Plaintiffs to “show that in exercise of reasonable diligence” they did not know of the 2009 

lease contract at the time that this court granted the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not argued 

that they did not know of the lease, let alone that they did not know of the lease despite exercising 

reasonable diligence. Plaintiffs cannot argue that, because the history of this case shows that they

knew of the lease: the 2009 lease contract was filed as Exhibit 3 of 25 (not counting subparts) to

the initial amended complaint.11 They did not resubmit the contract in support of their fifth 

amended complaint or their oppositions to Thomas Ramos, Instrella and Caoile’s motions to 

dismiss.12 It is “well-established that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent,’”

13 and so the court did not consider the exhibits to the 

 

7

See Docket No. 89 at 6-7.

8

See id. at 2.

9

See Docket No. 90-1 at 1.

10 See Docket No. 90 at 3.

11 See Docket No. 32-2 at 78.

12 See Docket Nos. 73, 78, 78-1, 78-2, 83, 83-1, 83-2, 83-3.

13 Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 91 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

initial amended complaint when ruling on the motions to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. If 

Plaintiffs wanted the court to consider the 2009 lease contract, they should have resubmitted it in 

support of their oppositions to the motions to dismiss, as they did with several other documents.14 

As for Cal. Civ. Code § 2351 and Cal. Prob. Code § 4014, Plaintiffs also do not show that

they satisfy Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)’s reasonable diligence requirement. Moreover, these provisions

merely define the terms “sub-agent” and “attorney-in-fact,” and do not support Plaintiffs’ claim 

for a breach of fiduciary duty against Thomas Ramos.

Second, Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the court’s holding that their claim for breach 

of fiduciary duty fails against Caoile.

15 The court held that there was no fiduciary relationship 

between Plaintiffs and Caoile, because Plaintiffs’ own evidence showed that “Caoile had power of 

attorney for the heirs of the estate of Mary George Caoile and for Noble George (now 

deceased),”

16 not Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now argue that Cal. Prob. Code § 9631(b) establishes that 

Caoile was liable to them for breach of fiduciary duty. This is not a new provision of law; it was 

last revised in 1990.17 Plaintiffs do not show that they did not “in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence”

18 know of Section 9631(b) when they were opposing the motions to dismiss, and so 

granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration is inappropriate. The court is sympathetic to 

Plaintiffs’ pro se status, but the court notes that Plaintiffs amended their complaint three times19

over the course of six months and thus had an adequate opportunity to research the law supporting 

their claims. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file for reconsideration is DENIED.

 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)).

14 See Docket Nos. 78-1, 78-2, 83-1, 83-2, 83-3.

15 See Docket No. 90 at 4-5.

16 Docket No. 89 at 6.

17 See Law Revision Commission Comments, Cal. Prob. Code § 9631.

18 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

19 See Docket Nos. 32, 58, 73.

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 91 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 5:14-cv-04713-PSG

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04713-PSG Document 91 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 5