Sundby v. Myers
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Dale Sundby filed objections to the court's prior order requiring him to obtain legal representation for his trust, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no clear error or new evidence, and reaffirmed the deadline to obtain counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for reconsideration of the March 17, 2023 Order denied“To the extent that Sundby is seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the Court denies reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for reconsideration, requiring newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change in controlling law. The order recites that Sundby presented no new evidence or legal changes and failed to persuasively demonstrate that the court's prior findings were clearly erroneous. The denial follows from the law and the record as described in the order. |
Deadline to obtain legal representation reaffirmed“The deadline from the Court’s March 17, 2023 Order remains in effect and unaffected by Sundby’s objections.” | agree with court The court reaffirmed a prior order after denying the motion to alter or vacate it. This is a standard procedural consequence of denying a Rule 60 motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural vehicle for the plaintiff's challenge (Rule 60 rather than Rule 46) and applies the correct Ninth Circuit standard for reconsideration. It explicitly addresses the plaintiff's arguments by noting the absence of new evidence or legal changes and the lack of persuasive argument for clear error. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE SUNDBY, Trustee,, Case No.: 19-CV-0390-GPC-AHG 21-CV-2013-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RE PLAINTIFF DALE SUNDBY’S IMPROPER USE OF 14 MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, et al., OBJECTIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 15, 2022, the Court issued an Order mandating that legal 18 representation be obtained on behalf of the Dale H. Sundby and Edith Littlefield Sundby, 19 Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989. ECF No. 310. Plaintiff Dale Sundby objected 20 to this Order. ECF No. 312. On March 17, 2023, after inviting briefing on the issue, ECF 21 No. 313, the Court reaffirmed its December 2022 Order and clarified that it interpreted 22 “Sundby’s objections to have been a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order.” ECF 23 No. 324 at 5 n.4. Sundby objected to the March 17, 2023 Order. ECF No. 325. The Court 24 issued a notice explaining that the deadline from the March 17, 2023 Order was still in 25 effect but declining to take any further action on Sundby’s objections as they did not appear 26 to be a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 327. 27 1 1 Now, Sundby has issued another round of objections and insists, without pointing to 2 any authority, that he has “a right to have [his] objections ruled upon.” ECF No. 328 at 2. 3 The Court is not aware of any provision allowing parties to object to a judge’s order outside 4 the context of a trial. Presumably, Sundby is relying on Rule 46, but Rule 46 is inapplicable 5 because it offers a means of objecting to rulings or orders at trial. See, e.g., Monaghan v. 6 Hill, 140 F.2d 31, 33 (9th Cir. 1944) (discussing Rule 46 purpose of calling errors “to the 7 attention of the trial court”); Guangyu Wang v. Nevada Sys. Of Higher Educ., No. 3:18-cv- 8 00075-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 2250272, at *1 (D. Nev. May 23, 2019) (liberally construing 9 pro se plaintiff’s objection to a court order as a motion for reconsideration); Lagmay v. 10 Nobriga, No. 15-00463 LEK/KJM, 2016 WL 2733101, at *1–2 (D. Haw. May 10, 2016) 11 (“Rule 46 governs objections at trial and has no application here.”). 12 To the extent that Sundby is seeking reconsideration under Rule 60, the Court denies 13 reconsideration. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 14 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 15 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 16 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Sundby has not presented any new 17 evidence or suggested that there has been a change in the controlling law. See ECF Nos. 18 325 & 328 (absence). Although Sundby argues that some of the Court’s findings were 19 erroneous, see, e.g., ECF No. 325 at 2 (disagreeing with the Court’s interpretation of Ninth 20 Circuit opinion), none of his objections persuasively suggest that the Court’s findings were 21 clearly erroneous. Accordingly, reconsideration of the Court’s March 17, 2023 Order is 22 unwarranted. 23 The deadline from the Court’s March 17, 2023 Order remains in effect and 24 unaffected by Sundby’s objections. See ECF No. 324. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 2 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: April 3, 2023 2 apho C04 3 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel A United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91.GV.2013.-GPC-AHG