UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2013
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DAVID MEDNANSKY, MARTINE DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING RECONSIDERATION UNDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER MEDNANSKY, individually, RULE 60(b)(6) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR. RULES 60(b)(3) AND (4); [Doc. No. 77]
Presently before the Court is Defendants David Mednansky and Martine Mednansky's Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (4), and (6). [Doc. No. 77.] The Court has previously entertained Defendants' arguments related to Rule 60(b)(4), and on this ground summarily DISMISSES this claim. [See Doc. No. 67.] Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendants' 60(b)(3) argument is premised on the same grounds as their 60(b)(4) request, and DISMISSES this claim as well.
Finally, Defendants fail to demonstrate that another "reason . . . justifies relief" under Rule 60(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). "Judgments are not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Rule is used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). "Accordingly, a party who moves for such relief 'must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action in a proper fashion.'" Id. (quoting Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Here, Defendants' request for reconsideration relies on events that presumably occurred in 2009 and 2010. [See Civil Case No. 09CV1478-LAB-BGS (case dismissed August 26, 2010).] Furthermore, Defendants rely on a Supreme Court case decided March 21, 2012. [See Mot. at 19-21 (citing Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1371 (2012)).] A motion for reconsideration is not the proper mechanism to raise arguments that could reasonably have been presented earlier in litigation. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants fail to explain why the grounds raised in the present motion could not have been raised in any of their three previous motions for reconsideration, all filed afterthe Supreme Court issued the Sackett decision. [See Doc. Nos. 50, 53, 67.] Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.