Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Trammell v. Kln Enterprises, Inc. (2026-05-15) — reversed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mark Trammell moved for reconsideration of the court's prior order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration“Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for reconsideration, which requires a showing of newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. The order states that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the 'extraordinary remedy' was appropriate. While the order does not detail the specific arguments the plaintiff made, the application of the legal standard is correct, and the conclusion that the motion is denied follows from the failure to meet the high threshold for reconsideration. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for reconsideration in the Ninth Circuit, citing binding precedent (ACandS, Carroll, Berman) and Supreme Court authority (Exxon Shipping). It correctly notes that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and that mere disagreement is insufficient. The court vacated the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), which is a standard procedural step. The only gap is the lack of specific factual analysis of why the plaintiff's arguments failed, but the conclusion is supported by the cited legal standards.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on Case No.: 3:23-cv-01884-H-JLB behalf of all those similarly situated, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 14 KLN ENTERPRISES, INC., dba Wiley 15 [Doc. No. 14.] Wallaby, a Minnesota corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff Mark Trammell (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for 19 reconsideration of the Court’s April 22, 2024 order granting Defendant KLN Enterprises, 20 Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 14.) On 21 May 13, 2024, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for 22 reconsideration. (Doc. No. 15.) On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. No. 17.) 23 A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is currently scheduled for 24 May 27, 2024.1 (Doc. No. 14.) The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local 25 Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, 26 27 1 For future motions, all parties must comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1 and obtain a 28 1 submits the motion on the parties’ papers, and vacates the hearing. 2 A district court has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke a prior order. 3 United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). “Reconsideration [of a prior 4 order] is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 5 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 6 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 7 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); accord Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 8 (9th Cir. 2013). 9 Reconsideration of a prior order is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly 10 in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 11 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); accord Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 12 F.4th 849, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 13 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] motion for reconsideration should 14 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances . . . .”); Raiser v. San Diego Cnty., 15 No. 19-cv-00751-GPC, 2021 WL 4751199, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (“Motions for 16 reconsideration are disfavored and should only be granted in narrow instances.”). A motion 17 for reconsideration may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or 18 present evidence for the first time that reasonably could have been raised earlier in the 19 litigation. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008); see Berman, 30 20 F.4th at 859 (“Reconsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments or 21 introduce new evidence if, with reasonable diligence, the arguments and evidence could 22 have been presented during consideration of the original ruling.” (citing Kona Enterprises, 23 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))); Williams v. Cnty. of San 24 Diego, 542 F. Supp. 3d 1070, 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (“A motion for reconsideration is not 25 a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present evidence which should have been raised 26 before.”). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 27 Court’s decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 28 (E.D. Cal. 2001); accord Williams, 542 F. Supp. 3d at 1071. Where a motion for 1 reconsideration is based off an assertion that the district court committed clear error or the 2 || initial decision was manifestly unjust, “[m]ere doubts or disagreement about the wisdom 3 ||of a prior decision . . . will not suffice . .. To be clearly erroneous, a decision must [be] 4 ||more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must be dead wrong.” Heathman v. Portfolio 5 ||Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 12-cv-201-IEG-RBB, 2013 WL 1284184, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 6 || Mar. 26, 2013). “Clearly erroneous 1s a very exacting standard.” Id. 7 After reviewing the parties’ briefs on the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has 8 || failed to demonstrate that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is appropriate. 9 || Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: May 20, 2024 | | |. | | MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28