United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff Charles Kinney moves the court to reconsider its
decision to transfer the case to the Central District on the
grounds that 1) the court should have disqualified itself and
2) in any event should not have transferred the
case. The court finds that it can decide this
matter without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
The court denies the motion for reconsideration.
motion to reconsider a final appealable order is
appropriately brought under either Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Fuller v. M.G.
Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991).
Reconsideration is an ''extraordinary remedy, to be
used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation
of judicial resources. ''Kona Enters., Inc. v.
Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000);
see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101,
1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Motions for reconsideration should not
be frequently made or freely granted. Twentieth
Century'' Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d
1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1980).
59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending a
judgment. Rule 59(e) does not state when a court should
reconsider a prior decision, but the Ninth Circuit has stated
that ''Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the
district court '(1) is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening
change in controlling law.‘'' Dixon v.
Wallowa Cnty., 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003)
(quoting School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).
under Rule 60(b),
the court may relieve a party. . . from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
speaking, though, a motion for reconsideration ''may
not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments
or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.''Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (referring to Rule
59(e)); see also Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,
362 F.3d 1254, 1259-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (referring to Rule
60(b)); Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (interpreting
Rule 59(e)). The sole exception is when the court has
committed ''clear'' or
''manifest'' error. Mere disagreement with a
court‘s order, however, does not provide a basis for
reconsideration. See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d
1253, 1256 (9th Cir. 1999).
Kinney‘s first argument is that the court erred by
referring to its prior order transferring a different case in
2014; he argues that this is information from an
impermissible extrajudicial source. It is not. The court
considers other opinions and other orders all the time,
sometimes for precedent, sometimes for procedural context,
and sometimes for persuasive authority. This is not unusual;
it is ordinary.
The transfer was appropriate
lawsuit challenges the defendants‘ debt-collection
practices against Mr. Kinney in state court; Mr. Kinney
asserts that they violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices
'Citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692i, Mr. Kinney argued in his
opposition to the motion to transfer and again here that
venue for his complaint is exclusively in the Northern
District. That venue statute requires debt
collectors to bring lawsuits to enforce debts against
consumers 1) in the case of a lawsuit to enforce an interest
in real property, in the judicial district where the real
property is located; or 2) for other lawsuits, in the
district where the consumer signed the contract sued upon or
where the consumer resides at the time the lawsuit is filed.
See 15 U.S.C. ...