Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03526/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03526-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allstate
Counter Claimant
Allstate Insurance Company
Defendant
Jacob Winding
Counter 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB WINDING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-3526-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

I. BACKGROUND 

On December 17, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint and 

instructing the clerk’s office to enter default as to the defendant’s counterclaim. Order Dec. 17, 

2014, ECF No. 192. The clerk’s office entered default on the same day, ECF No. 193, and 

Allstate filed a motion for default judgment on January 16, 2015, ECF No. 194. Also on 

January 16, the plaintiff, Jacob Winding, filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 196; a motion for 

reconsideration of the court’s December 17 order, ECF No. 197; and a motion for a stay pending 

appeal, ECF No. 198. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-03526-KJM-KJN Document 203 Filed 02/09/15 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

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Reconsideration 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to seek relief “from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding” for, among other reasons not applicable here, “mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, . . . excusable neglect, . . . newly discovered evidence . . . , or . . . any other 

reason that justifies relief.” This district’s local rules also require a party seeking reconsideration 

of a previous order to show, among other things, “what new or different facts or circumstances 

are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 

the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3), (4). 

Mr. Winding’s motion does not alert the court to any new facts, changes in the 

law, mistake, neglect, or other reasons why the court should reconsider its earlier order; rather, he 

presents evidence of his medical limitations, notes he is not represented and seeks an attorney. 

The court considered these facts in its previous order and concluded dismissal and entry of default 

were the appropriate resolution. See Order Dec. 17, 2014, at 3–4, ECF No. 192. The motion for 

reconsideration is denied. 

B. Stay Pending Appeal 

The party seeking a stay bears the burden to show it is entitled to a stay. Latta v. 

Otter, 771 F.3d 496, 498 (9th Cir. 2014). A motion for a stay pending appeal requires an analysis 

similar to that in the case of a motion for preliminary injunction. Earth Island Inst. v. 

Ruthenbeck, No. 03-6386, 2005 WL 3284289, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2005) (citing Lopez v. 

Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court considers four factors: “(1) whether the 

stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether 

the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will 

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest 

lies.” Latta, 771 F.3d at 498. 

Mr. Winding has not carried his burden to show he is entitled to a stay. He has not 

cited or applied any law to show resolution of this case will likely be in his favor. Neither has 

Case 2:09-cv-03526-KJM-KJN Document 203 Filed 02/09/15 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

Mr. Winding addressed the court’s concern that if the case were to continue, he would not 

prosecute it. See Order to Show Cause Nov. 14, 2014, ECF No. 189. He has not presented 

evidence he will suffer irreparable harm; should Mr. Winding’s appeal succeed, he will receive 

relief from any economic harm he suffered. Issuance of the stay will further delay the 

proceedings here and prevent Allstate from recovering on its counterclaim, a claim Mr. Winding 

has not adequately addressed and has previously not defended. Finally, Mr. Winding has 

described only vaguely a public interest in justice he says weighs in his favor. These arguments 

do not adequately address the concerns the court expressed in its previous orders. Id. at 3 

(describing the factors a court considers when deciding whether dismissal and default judgment 

are appropriate sanctions); Order Dec. 17, 2014, at 3–4, ECF No. 192 (applying these factors). 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 6, 2015. 

Case 2:09-cv-03526-KJM-KJN Document 203 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3