Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02671/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02671-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen E. Roulac
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN E. ROULAC and O.D. Parkinson,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-02671 JSW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A

MATTER OF LAW IN FAVOR OF

PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT TO

NEGLIGENCE PENALTY

On March 17, 2006, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, in which Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its judgment as a matter of law

in favor of Plaintiffs with respect to negligence penalties assessed by Defendant. 

On March 27, 2006, the Court construed that motion as a motion to alter or amend

judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), and issued a briefing schedule. The matter is now ripe for

decision, and the Court finds that oral argument is not warranted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Having considered the parties’ pleadings, and relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES

Defendant’s motion.

“A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a

judgment under Rule 59(e).” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, 338 F.3d 1058,

1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Although there are four grounds upon which a court may grant such a

motion, the essence of Defendant’s motion is that it is necessary to correct a manifest error of

Case 3:04-cv-02671-JSW Document 68 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 Defendant again contends that its motion should be considered under Rule 60. 

However, notwithstanding the fact that the Court had not entered a formal judgment with

respect to the amount of money to be refunded to Plaintiffs, that amount was not in dispute. 

Thus, the Court did adjudicate all rights and claims of the parties.

2

law or fact on which the judgment is based. See id.1 Specifically, Defendant asks the Court to

vacate its judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on this issue because the parties incorrectly assumed

the Defendant bore the burden of proof with respect to its entitlement to the negligence penalties

assessed. 

Although it appears that the Defendant is correct in its assertion that Plaintiffs should

have born the burden of proving that the negligence penalties did not apply, the Court concludes

Defendant invited this error in stipulating to a jury instruction that misstated the appropriate

burden and by agreeing during oral argument on the motion for judgment as a matter of law that

it bore the burden on this issue. (See 3/8/06 Tr. at 56:12-21.) Further, the parties apparently

approached the litigation under this assumption and, having sat through the trial, it is apparent to

the Court that the Plaintiffs presented their case operating under the assumption that the

Defendant had to show Plaintiffs were negligent, rather than having to put on evidence to show

they were not negligent. 

Having created the error of which its complains, Defendant should not now be permitted

to argue that because of this error, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden and the judgment must

be vacated. Cf. Hudson v. Wylie, 242 F.2d 435, 449 (9th Cir. 1957) (“Where a party prevents

proof by his objection, or procures its exclusion he cannot object that such a fact is not

proved.”). Accordingly, recognizing the wide discretion it has in ruling on a motion to alter or

amend a judgment, the Court concludes Defendant’s have not established that the Court’s ruling

in favor of Plaintiff on the question of negligence penalties should be set aside. 

The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to submit a judgment reflecting the Court’s ruling 

Case 3:04-cv-02671-JSW Document 68 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

and the amount of negligence penalties to be refunded to Plaintiffs by May 5, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02671-JSW Document 68 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 3