Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02908/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02908-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981jb Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

3:18-cv-2908-BEN-NLS

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

LETICIA NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN McALEENAN, ACTING 

SECRETARY, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-2908-BEN-NLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. 38]

Plaintiff Leticia Navarro moves the Court to reconsider its previous order granting 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. For the 

following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

On December 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed her employment discrimination and retaliation 

lawsuit under Title VII. Doc. 1. On May 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting 

Defendant Secretary of Homeland Security’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Doc. 23. As relevant here, the Court ruled that the named defendants, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Plaintiff’s two supervisors, were not proper 

defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 because for purposes of a Title VII action, (1) the 

agency itself is not a proper defendant, and (2) there is no cause of action for damages 

against supervisors or fellow employees. See Doc. 23 at 5. The Court then dismissed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, cautioning that “[w]hen deciding whether to reCase 3:18-cv-02908-BEN-NLS Document 42 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:18-cv-2908-BEN-NLS

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

file her lawsuit, Plaintiff would do well to heed our Ninth Circuit jurisprudence on the 

parameters within which an individual may sue the federal government under Title VII.” 

Id. at 6 (citing cases regarding requirement that plaintiff name the proper defendant within 

the statute of limitations). In addition, the Court expressly declined to decide whether 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, finding the issue 

premature because it had not been fully briefed by the parties. Id. at 2, n.3. 

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against “James M. 

Murray, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security.” Doc. 24. Mr. 

Murray is the Director of the United States Secret Service, not the Department of Homeland 

Security. On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against Kevin 

M. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Doc. 26. The 

next day, Plaintiff withdrew both her First and Second Amended Complaints and replaced 

them with an “Amended Complaint” also against McAleenan. Docs. 27-28. 

On November 5, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as 

untimely because Plaintiff failed to bring her civil action in district court against the proper 

defendant within the 90-day statute of limitations, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 

The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s failure to name the proper defendant until May 21, 

2019, well outside of the 90-day statute of limitations, could not be excused either under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)’s relation back doctrine or by equitable tolling. Doc. 

36. 

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), Plaintiff moves the 

Court to reconsider its Order dismissing her Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff 

asks the Court to set aside its conclusion that Plaintiff’s negligent failure to name the proper 

defendant within the limitations period does not, as a matter of law, justify application of 

the equitable tolling doctrine. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds reconsideration 

is not warranted.

Case 3:18-cv-02908-BEN-NLS Document 42 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:18-cv-2908-BEN-NLS

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

Because Plaintiff brings her motion within 28 days after the Court’s Order, it is 

properly analyzed as a Rule 59(e) motion. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 

(9th Cir. 1995). Reconsideration 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). 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.” Id. “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.” Life Techs. Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 2012 WL 

10933209, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2012) (quoting Kona, 229 F.3d at 890). Moreover, 

motions to reconsider are not a platform to relitigate arguments and facts previously 

considered and rejected. See Harrison v. Sofamor/Danek Grp., Inc., 1998 WL 1166044, 

at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 1998). 

In support of her motion, Plaintiff does not offer any newly discovered evidence or 

facts warranting reconsideration. Nor does she offer any new explanation for her failure 

to name the proper defendant within the limitations period. Instead, her motion largely 

repeats the same arguments she previously made regarding excusable neglect. As the Court 

already held, however, a garden variety claim of excusable neglect does not justify 

equitable tolling, particularly where the doctrine is to be applied sparingly and only in the 

face of, as Plaintiff’s own motion for reconsideration notes, “extreme cases.” Doc. 38-1 at 

5:22-23. Plaintiff’s case is not an “extreme” one.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s assertion that equitable tolling should apply 

because she was “diligent in pursuing and prosecuting her claims.” As the Court previously 

observed, Plaintiff conceded that the EEOC informed her in writing on October 18, 2018 

that she had 90 days to file a suit against the proper defendant. Doc. 33 at 5. The EEOC’s 

warning was clear:

Case 3:18-cv-02908-BEN-NLS Document 42 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:18-cv-2908-BEN-NLS

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

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District 

Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this 

decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the 

complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, 

identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure

to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or 

“department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility 

or department in which you work.

Doc. 33 at 5 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Plaintiff, who has been represented by legal 

counsel during the entirety of her lawsuit, failed to name the proper defendant within the 

limitations period. See, e.g., Johnson v. Henderson, 314 F.3d 409, 417 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(“Equitable tolling is unavailable to [plaintiff] because . . . she was represented by counsel 

in this matter from June 2000 onward. Thus . . . [plaintiff] may be charged with 

constructive knowledge of the law’s requirements, through her attorney, during the relevant 

time period.”). Plaintiff has not offered any new evidence to justify reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior Order. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the previous reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020

___________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02908-BEN-NLS Document 42 Filed 02/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4