United States District Court, E.D. California
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tyrone Doutherd (“Plaintiff”) seeks, inter
alia, an award of compensatory and punitive damages
against Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
(“Liberty Mutual”) and UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
(“UPSF”) for their roles in the alleged mishandling
of Plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim following
a vehicle accident that occurred while Plaintiff was on the
On March 22, 2019, this Court dismissed all claims against
Liberty Mutual with prejudice. ECF No. 96. Presently before
the Court are three motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order granting UPSF's lien
application, ECF No. 89; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 101;
and (3) Liberty Mutual's Bill of Costs, ECF No. 118. For
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
the FAC is also DENIED, and Liberty Mutual's Bill of
Costs is APPROVED.
claims arise out of an August 27, 2015, collision with a car
driven by Defendant Doris Montesdoeca. Plaintiff was
operating a loaded transport truck and trailer owned by UPSF.
Plaintiff claims that Montesdoeca was fighting with a male
passenger in the back seat when she lost control of the car
and careened into the divider. The car rebounded from the
divider and smashed into the front passenger side of
claims to have suffered significant back and shoulder pain as
well as knee damage as a result of the accident. He visited
the emergency room thereafter, began a course of physical
therapy, and returned to work for seven weeks of “light
duty” when permitted to do so. At the end of the seven
weeks, Plaintiff was required to return to full duty,
purportedly before he was healed. He had no more treatment,
therapy, or prescribed medication and was not re-evaluated to
determine his readiness to return to work.
to Plaintiff, UPSF initially prepared a Workers'
Compensation claim on behalf of Plaintiff but did not advise
him on his rights to benefits or compensation. Plaintiff did
not know if the forms were submitted or if his claims were
processed. He learned his claim was opened and then closed in
November 2015 from the “vehicle owner's insurance
carrier, ” not from UPSF or Liberty Mutual.
initiated the present action in Sacramento Superior Court on
August 25, 2017, claiming, in part, that UPSF and Liberty
Mutual acted in concert to adopt an illegal pattern and
practice of refusing to process Workers' Compensation
claims for injured UPSF employees. The case was removed to
this Court on October 24, 2017, (ECF No. 1) and the Initial
Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) was issued the
following day (ECF No. 4).
November 2, 2017, Liberty Mutual filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint on grounds that the claims were
barred by the exclusivity rule of the Workers'
Compensation Act (“WCA”). ECF No. 8. On August
14, 2018, the Court granted Liberty Mutual's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action
with leave to amend, giving Plaintiff one opportunity to
assert a viable cause of action against Liberty Mutual. ECF
No. 31. On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed his FAC,
adding new allegations and causes of action against UPSF. ECF
Nos. 33, 34. On September 26, 2018, UPSF filed a Motion to
Strike those additions to the FAC on grounds that Plaintiff
failed to obtain leave to amend. ECF No. 36.
September 28, 2018, UPSF filed an Application for Lien,
claiming a first lien against any settlement or judgment in
this action, and in the amount of any additional sum which
hereafter may be paid as workers' compensation benefits
to or on behalf of Plaintiff. ECF No. 42. Plaintiff filed
objections on December 12, 2018. ECF No. 64. On December 20,
2018, UPSF filed an Amended Application for Lien (ECF No.
75), and Plaintiff filed objections on December 31, 2018 (ECF
No. 82). This Court granted UPSF's amended application on
January 2, 2019; however, the Order was signed on December
30, 2018. ECF No. 83.
March 22, 2019, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against Liberty Mutual without leave to amend and granted
UPSF's Motion to Strike, finding that Plaintiff failed to
seek leave to amend his complaint as to UPSF and must either
meet and confer with UPSF or seek the Court's leave to
file an amended complaint. ECF No. 96. On April 9, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the FAC. ECF No. 101.
Motion for Reconsideration
should not revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary
circumstances show that its prior decision was wrong.
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486
U.S. 800, 816 (1988). This principle is generally embodied in
the law of the case doctrine. That doctrine counsels against
reopening questions once resolved in ongoing litigation.
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882
F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 18 Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 4478). Nonetheless, a court order
resolving fewer than all of the claims among all of the
parties is “subject to revision at any time before the
entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights
and liabilities of all the parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(b). Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought,
the court has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter
or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226
F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,
532 U.S. 1002 (2001). The major grounds that justify
reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Pyramid, 882 F.2d at 369.
Motion to ...