Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01249/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01249-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 Plaintiff Donald E. Benson, who died subsequent to the

filing of this action, was dismissed as a plaintiff purusuant to

the court’s order of January 5, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25.

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DONALD E. BENSON, MARYLAN

J. BENSON, and DONALD BENSON 

FAMILY LLC

NO. CIV. S-04-1249 FCD EFB

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CREST ENERGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs Marylan J.

Benson and the Donald Benson Family LLC’s (“plaintiffs”)1 motion

for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b). On December 1, 2006, the court granted defendant Crest

Oil & Gas Management Corp.’s (“defendant”) motion for summary

judgment, thereby dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims against

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 4
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 Based on the court’s order, judgment was entered in

favor of defendant and the case closed. (Docket #100.) However,

said judgment was entered in error because the court’s order did

not resolve the entirety of the case--defendant’s counter-claim

against plaintiffs remained pending. As such, on December 7,

2006, the court vacated the judgment and re-opened the case. 

(Docket #101.)

3 Because oral argument will not be material assistance,

the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

L.R. 78-230(h).

4 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on February 20,

2007.

2

defendant.2

 Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of that

order, arguing that reversal of the order is required to

“accomplish justice” in this case.3

Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or

order, a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule

59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion

for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Because plaintiffs’

motion was filed more than ten days after entry of dismissal,4

the court will consider the motion under Rule 60(b). Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring that all motions submitted pursuant to

this rule be filed within ten days of entry of judgment). 

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration of a

final judgment or order is appropriate only where (1) the court

is presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the court

committed “clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust,” or (3) there is an intervening change in the controlling

law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263.

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 4
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

It appears plaintiffs’ motion herein is premised on the

second basis. However, it is difficult to discern the basis for

plaintiffs’ motion because plaintiffs’ papers are nearly

unintelligible, offering little more than a series of string

citations to cases setting forth the standard for Rule 60(b)

motions and vague references to alleged errors committed by the

court regarding its findings as to plaintiff Donald Benson Family

LLC (“Family LLC”). As plaintiffs have not presented any

plausible basis for their motion, the court summarily denies the

motion. Plaintiffs present no change in the controlling law, no

newly-discovered evidence, and make no showing that the court

committed clear error.

In that later regard, the court notes that even assuming the

truth of plaintiffs’ allegations, that the Family LLC never

transacted business in the State of California, such fact does

not impact the court’s ruling with regard to the company. The

court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the

claims asserted by the Family LLC because plaintiffs proffered no

evidence that the company was qualified to maintain this action

in California as a plaintiff. Pursuant to California

Corporations Code sections 2105 and 2203, a foreign corporation,

like the Family LLC (a Michigan company), must hold a valid

certificate of qualification from the California Secretary of

State, authorizing the company to do business in California, in

order to maintain a lawsuit in California. (Mem. & Order, filed

Dec. 1, 2006, at 12.) Here, the Family LLC’s manager testified

that the company did not have such a certificate, and defendant

proffered evidence that none could be found on the Secretary of

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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 Moreover, even if the Family LLC could maintain the

action, plaintiffs proffered no evidence on the summary judgment

motion, nor have they done so here, establishing a viable basis

for any of its claims against defendant. (See Mem. & Order,

filed Dec. 1, 2006, at 4-5 n. 7.)

4

State’s website. Based on this evidence, the court dismissed all

claims asserted by the Family LLC against defendant. Plaintiffs

present no contrary evidence on the instant motion (let alone any

“newly discovered” evidence on the issue), and thus, there is no

basis for reconsideration of the court’s prior order.5

Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment is accordingly

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: April 5, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 112 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 4