Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

LARRY D. KERNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW J. WENNER,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2438-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the motion to reconsider partial summary judgment 

(ECF No. 149), the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 154), the motion for exclusion of GCIU 

Employer Retirement Fund’s contract with ERISA (ECF No. 156), the motion to allow 

Plaintiff to correct exhibits in motion to reconsider partial summary judgment (ECF No. 

158), and the motion to remove document 165 from the docket (ECF No. 170).

I. BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Larry D. Kerns initiated this action by filing the 

complaint against Defendants Mathew J. Wenner, Hugh Gaylord, Edward Treacy, Thomas 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

Sarnecki, George Tedeschi, Charles Kamen and John D. Bachler.1 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff 

brings causes of action for mail fraud and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) and seeks $3,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff allegations relate to 

Plaintiff’s benefits under the GCIU-Employment Retirement Fund. Id. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 149)

On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling on 

a prior motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff on the basis of new evidence. (ECF 

No. 149). Plaintiff contends that new evidence proves that he was eligible for full 

retirement benefits and that Defendant knew Plaintiff was eligible for full retirement 

benefits as of July 8, 2010. Plaintiff contends that he has seen this evidence many times 

but that he “simply did not or could not; comprehend; the evidence (information) on the 

previous pages; until a few weeks; ago. One of my; Disability, Issues.” (ECF No. 149 at 

8). 

On January 29, 2018, Defendant filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 165).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to provide any new admissible evidence and fails to 

establish that any new evidence was unavailable when the motion for partial summary 

judgment was filed. Defendant contends that both the motion for summary judgment and 

motion for reconsideration fail to address ERISA. Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails 

to state grounds upon which summary judgment is warranted and fails to establish by 

admissible evidence that the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Defendant 

states that Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement of undisputed fact in support of his 

motion for summary judgment and fails to remedy this deficiency in his motion for 

reconsideration. Defendant files evidentiary objections to the evidence cited by Plaintiff 

in his motion for reconsideration on the following grounds: lack of foundation; lack of 

 

1 Defendant Mathew Wenner is the only defendant remaining in this action. Defendants 

Gaylord, Treacy, Sarnecki, Tedeschi, Kamen, and Bachler were dismissed from this action 

with prejudice. (ECF No. 39). 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

authentication; lack of personal knowledge; hearsay; irrelevance; and ambiguous, 

confusing, and misleading evidence. (ECF No. 166). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 

F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 

873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 

(9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “A motion for reconsideration ‘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.’” Id. at 880 (quoting Kona, 229 F.3d 

at 890). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of 

the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation,

331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) provides that when a party 

moves the Court for reconsideration of a prior order, the party must identify “what new or 

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not 

shown, upon such prior application.” CivLR 7.1(i).

On November 20, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate that summary 

judgment was appropriate with respect to either the ADA claim or the mail fraud claim. 

(ECF No. 145). In this motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this 

Order based upon new evidence but concedes that he has seen this purported new evidence 

“many times.” Accordingly, Plaintiff does not establish that the documents are newlydiscovered evidence and fails to establish adequate grounds for reconsideration. 

Further, evidence provided by a party in support of a motion for summary judgment 

must be admissible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 

978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible.”). 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “has repeatedly held that unauthenticated documents 

cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 

285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, Plaintiff has failed to properly authenticate 

his purported new evidence. (ECF No. 149 at 3-6). Thus, the Court would be unable to 

consider this evidence in support of any motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff has failed to establish that any reconsideration of the Court’s prior order 

denying his motion for partial summary judgment is warranted. The motion for 

reconsideration is denied. (ECF No. 149). 

III. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 154)

On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion stating, “IF PLAINTIFF KERNS’: 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMERY JUDGEMENT; IS GRANTED; WITH AN 

AWARD OF AT LEAST 2 MILLION DOLLARS; BUT LESS THEN 3 MILLION 

DOLLARS: PLAINTIFF; LARRY D. KERNS, HEREBY ENTERS A MOTION TO 

DISMISS; ALL REMAINING ISSUES: WITHOUT PREJUDICE: DUE TO 

PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S; WIFE’S; HEALTH ISSUES.” (ECF No. 154). 

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and Plaintiff’s 

subsequent motion for reconsideration. The motion to dismiss is denied as moot. (ECF 

No. 154). 

IV. MOTION FOR EXCLUSION OF GCIU EMPLOYER RETIREMENT 

FUND’S CONTRACT WITH ERISA (ECF No. 156). 

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for exclusion of the GCIU Employer 

Retirement Fund’s Contract with ERISA as irrelevant. Plaintiff fails to provide an 

adequate legal or factual basis to warrant the exclusion of this document at this stage in the 

proceedings. The motion is denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 156). 

V. MOTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO CORRECT AND REPLACE 

PAGES IN ITS MOTION TO RECONSIDER PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(ECF No. 158)

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court permit him 

to file replacement pages in support of his motion to reconsider partial summary judgment 

in the event that Defendant objects to the admissibility of the documents. (ECF No. 158). 

Plaintiff contends that this should be permitted because otherwise Defendant would be 

allowed to “Obstruct; plaintiff’s Justice.” Id. at 1. 

Plaintiff fails to identify an adequate legal basis for this motion. Further, Plaintiff 

fails to demonstrate that he could remedy the deficiencies of the evidence objected to by 

Defendant. The motion is denied. (ECF No. 158). 

VI. MOTION TO REMOVE DOCKET NUMBER 165 FROM THE DOCKET

(ECF No. 170). 

On January 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion stating, “PLAINTIFF, KERNS; 

TOTALLY AGREES; WITH DEFENSE; REGARDING DOCKET NO. 166; [BELOW] 

AND URGES, HONORABLE; JUDGE HAYS; TO GRANT; DEFENDANT’S; 

REQUEST; BY REMOVING DOCUMENT NUMBER 165; FROM HONORABLE 

COURT’S DOCKET.” (ECF No. 170 at 1). 

Docket number 166 is “Defendant Mathew J. Wenner’s Evidentiary Objections in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 166). Docket number 165 is “Defendant Mathew J. 

Wenner’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 149) of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108).” (ECF No. 165). 

Plaintiff fails to identify any statement by Defendant requesting that the Court remove 

Document 165 from the docket. The motion is denied. (ECF No. 170). 

VII. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reconsider partial summary judgment 

(ECF No. 149), the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 154), the motion for exclusion of GCIU 

Employer Retirement Fund’s contract with ERISA (ECF No. 156), the motion to allow 

Plaintiff to correct exhibits in motion to reconsider partial summary judgment (ECF No. 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv2438-WQH-AGS

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

158), and the motion to remove document 165 from the docket (ECF No. 170) filed by 

Plaintiff Larry D. Kerns are DENIED. 

Dated: May 7, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 192 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6