Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK MORALES, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

FIVE J’S TRUCKING, Inc. )

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, )

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________ )

CIV F-04-5429 AWI LJO

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Document #19)

This is one of several actions concerning overtime wages originally filed by attorney Jerry

Budin while working for the law firm Green & Azevedo. Mr. Budin has left Green & Azevedo. 

Several clients, including Plaintiff Rick Morales, have indicated that they wish Mr. Budin to

continue as their attorney. Numerous motions have been filed in this and other actions

concerning who is and who previously was the clients’ attorney.

In this action, Mr. Budin did not file a substitution of attorneys. Rather, when Mr. Budin

left Green & Azevedo he merely notified the Clerk of the Court of a change in address. Because

of the court’s knowledge of the dispute between Mr. Budin and Green & Azevedo, Magistrate

Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, in the interests of caution, directed the Clerk of the Court and the

parties to serve both Mr. Budin and Green & Azevedo with all documents in this action. It is

this order by Judge O’Neill that has resulted in numerous motions. Pending before the court is

Mr. Budin’s motion to reconsider Judge O’Neill’s order declining to vacate his order directing

the Clerk of the Court and the parties to serve Green & Azevedo.

Case 1:04-cv-05429-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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 2

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1992).

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed

to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a).

Judge O’Neill’s order directing the Clerk of the Court and the parties to continue serving

Green & Azevedo, along with Mr. Budin, was not clear error. No substitution of attorneys has

been filed in this action. Mr. Budin has not convinced the court that Green & Azevedo were not

Plaintiffs’ attorney at any time, such as before Mr. Budin left Green & Azevedo. Mr. Budin has

provided no authority that prohibits a court from having the Clerk of the Court and the parties

serve an interested third party. Mr. Budin and Green & Azevedo’s insistence that this court

become involved in their partnership dispute in other actions causes this court to believe keeping

Green & Azevedo on the proof of service for this action, at this time, is highly prudent.

Case 1:04-cv-05429-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, Mr. Budin’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05429-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 3