Pamela Bennett and James Bennett v. The United States, et. al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of an order denying their motion for summary judgment, arguing the court erred in finding the motion premature and in relying on Advisory Committee Notes. The court denied the motion, holding that the prior order was not a final judgment subject to Rules 59(e) or 60(b), and that under Local Rule 7.1.i, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the underlying order denying summary judgment was not a final judgment, rendering Rules 59(e) and 60(b) inapplicable. It then properly applied Local Rule 7.1.i, which governs reconsideration of non-final orders in the Southern District of California. The court correctly noted that mere disagreement with a prior ruling is insufficient grounds for reconsideration and that the plaintiffs did not present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate clear error. The reliance on Advisory Committee Notes is legally sound as they are a reliable source for interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly distinguishes between final judgments (subject to Rules 59(e)/60(b)) and non-final orders (subject to Local Rule 7.1.i). It applies the correct standard for reconsideration of non-final orders in the S.D. Cal. and correctly rejects the plaintiff's argument that disagreement with a prior ruling warrants reconsideration. The citation to Vonn supports the propriety of using Advisory Committee Notes. No significant gaps or errors are apparent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMELA BENNETT AND JAMES Case No.: 26-cv-1403-BJC-BJW BENNETT, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, RECONSIDERATION 13 v. 14 [ECF No. 11] THE UNITED STATES, et. al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 11. 20 Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate the order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 21 judgment. ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) applies to motions to alter or amend a 23 judgment, “in other words, a final order.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 24 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). Rule 60(b) similarly provides relief from judgments, 25 orders, or proceedings that are final. Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 104 (9th 26 Cir. 1958); see also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 27 816 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The word “final” in the Rule designates orders that terminate 28 litigation and are subject to appeal.”). The order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary 1 judgment is not a final order. As such, Rules 59(e) and 60(b) are not applicable. 2 However, a party may apply for reconsideration of an order denying a motion, 3 application, or petition in the Southern District of California. LR 7.1.i. The applicant must 4 provide an affidavit that includes “what new or different facts and circumstances are 5 claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. 6 Courts often utilize the standards of Rules 59(e) and 60(b) when addressing motions for 7 reconsideration. Kroutik v. Rajic, 2025 WL 3558843, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025). A 8 court may grant reconsideration under Rule 59(e), when it is “presented with newly 9 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 10 controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 Rule 60 allows for reconsideration for (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 12 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misrepresentation; (4) the judgment is 13 void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. 14 CIV. P. 60(b). Reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation 15 v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 16 Cir. 2003). 17 Plaintiffs contend the Court erred in determining it is required to wait until 18 Defendants respond to the complaint before considering a motion for summary judgment. 19 Plaintiffs maintain their motion for summary judgment is meritorious and, therefore, the 20 Court is required to grant the motion. Additionally, they argue the Court’s reliance on the 21 Advisory Committee comments was improper. 22 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, the Court did not determine it was required to wait 23 before considering a motion for summary judgment. In the order denying Plaintiffs’ 24 motion for summary judgment, the Court recognized that Rule 56 permits summary 25 judgment at the commencement of an action but found, here, the motion is premature. 26 Plaintiffs appear to disagree with the Court’s determination that summary judgment is 27 premature. However, disagreement with the Court’s order is insufficient to support 28 reconsideration. Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. 1 Haw. 2005). Additionally, the Court’s reliance on Advisory committee notes was not 2 ||improper. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64, n.6 (2002) (finding advisory 3 committee notes “provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a rule”). 4 Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the Court 5 || DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 29, 2026 8 10 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28