Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leung Chinn
Claimant
Betty K. Chinn
Claimant
Byron Pickle
Claimant
Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Road, Hawkins Bar, California, APN: 008-760-12
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Real Property Located at 17 Coon

Creek Road, Hawkins Bar,

California, APN: 008-760-12, 

 Defendant,

________________________________

Leung Chinn, Betty K. Chinn,

Byron Pickle, 

 Claimants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-1937-GEB-DAD

ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT BYRON

PICKLE’S MOTION TO

RECONSIDER*

Claimant Byron Pickle (“Pickle”) moves in this in rem

forfeiture action for reconsideration of the December 21, 2011 Order.

This order granted the government’s motion to strike Pickle’s claim and

answer since Pickle had not responded to the government’s special

interrogatories, and denied Pickle’s motion to stay the forfeiture

proceedings. 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, . . .

unless the . . . 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) (citation omitted).

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 63 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 2
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

Pickle advances arguments in his motion for reconsideration

that were either raised earlier or could have been raised earlier. “A

party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the . . . 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.” United States v. Westlands Water

Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation

and citation omitted). Further, a party “may not . . . raise arguments

. . . for the first time [in a motion for reconsideration] when they

could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn

Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880 (citation omitted). Therefore, Pickle

has not shown that reconsideration of the December 21, 2011 Order is

warranted and the motion is DENIED.

Dated: March 14, 2012

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 63 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 2