United States District Court, N.D. California
For Ralph Dairy, Lynette Dairy, Joseph Spier, Phyllis Spier, F/V Brooke Michelle LLC, formerly known as Sabrina LLC, William " Bill" Currie, Howard Moore, Plaintiffs: Gwendolyn L. Fanger, James Patrick Walsh, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA; James S. Crane, Thane Walker Tienson, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP, Portland, OR.
For Charlton Bonham, Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Defendant: Annadel A. Almendras, LEAD ATTORNEY, State Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA; Gary Alexander, LEAD ATTORNEY, Department of Justice, Office of the Attornney General, San Francisco, CA; Margaret Elaine Meckenstock, Office of the Attorney General, State of California, San Francisco, CA.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge.
(Docket No. 98)
Plaintiffs are six individuals and one limited liability company  involved in commercial Dungeness crab fishing, who have sued to invalidate California Fish & Game Code § 8276.5, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for various alleged federal
constitutional violations. The Court issued its order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of that ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background in this action is set forth more fully in the Court's order granting dismissal of certain of Plaintiffs' claim. See Docket No. 46.
Plaintiffs filed the current lawsuit against the director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (" Defendant" ), challenging California Fish & Game Code section 8276.5 (Dungeness Crab Trap Limit Program regulations) on various constitutional grounds. Plaintiffs contend that because § 8276.5, an implementing regulation of the Dungeness Crab Trap Limit Program, as the issuance of California crabbing permits on the historical record of a permitee's catch landed in California (and excluding that landed in Oregon or Washington) during the Qualifying Period of 2003-2008, the statute discriminates against nonresident fishermen. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss certain of Plaintiffs' claims: first (Commerce Clause), second (Equal Protection Clause), third (Right to Free Movement), fourth (Privileges and Immunities Clause, as to Plaintiff F/V Brooke Michelle only), fifth (Procedural Due Process), sixth (Bill of Attainder, all plaintiffs), and seventh (Bill of Attainder, as to Plaintiffs Dairy, Speer, and Moore only). See Docket No. 21. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that ruling. Docket No. 92. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims: (1) fourth (Privileges and Immunities Clause, as to the remaining plaintiffs); and (2) eighth (Conflict Preemption With Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Court granted in part and denied in part that motion (the " Order" ). Docket No. 67.
Defendant moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Order and filed a substantive motion in support. See Docket No. 98. Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its ruling denying summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' privileges-and-immunities claim. The Court granted leave to file the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs filed an opposition. See Docket Nos. 101, 102.
A. Standard of Review
A motion for reconsideration is an " extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, " a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to raise arguments or ...