Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Cumpston
Defendant
Ane Deister
Defendant
El Dorado Irrigation District
Defendant
George Osborne
Defendant
David Powell
Defendant
Scott Shewbridge
Plaintiff
George Wheeldon
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT SHEWBRIDGE,

NO. CIV. S-05-0740 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

a municipal corporation; ANE

DEISTER, DAVID POWELL, THOMAS

CUMPSTON, GEORGE WHEELDON,

GEORGE OSBORNE,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for

reconsideration of the court’s April 30, 2007 order denying their

motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order (“PSO”) to permit

the filing of a dispositive motion on defendants’ affirmative

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 64 Filed 06/25/07 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2 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

defendants’ motion was filed more than ten days after entry of

the court’s order, the court will consider the instant motion

under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring that all

motions submitted pursuant to this rule be filed within ten days

of entry of judgment or order). 

2

defense of res judicata.1

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b).2 In

said order, the court found that defendants had not diligently

sought to modify the PSO, and thus relief could not be granted

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), or

alternatively, that defendants waived the defense. (Docket #53.) 

Defendants now move for reconsideration of that latter finding,

arguing the court committed “clear error” in concluding that

defendants otherwise waived the defense. For the reasons stated

below, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) are 

“extraordinary remed[ies] 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). Thus, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that 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. (citation

omitted.) When a motion for reconsideration is based on a claim

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 64 Filed 06/25/07 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

of clear error, as in this case, the moving party must do more

than repeat arguments made in the underlying motion. 

“Reiteration of arguments originally made in support of, or in

opposition to, a motion . . . do not provide a valid basis for

reconsideration.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Doctors Co., 299 F. Supp.

2d 1131, 1154 (D. Hawaii 2003); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778

F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).

This is precisely what defendants have done in this motion;

they simply repeat arguments they asserted in the original

motion, arguments which were fully considered by the court in its

order. Indeed nowhere in their papers do they identify any new

facts or issues justifying reconsideration. Accordingly, the

court need not restate its analysis here. There is no basis for

granting the motion for reconsideration.

Thus, for these reasons and those stated fully in the

court’s order of April 30, 2007, the court DENIES defendants’

motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: June 25, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 64 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 3