Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harold Kon; Francine D. Peters; Frank L. Thornton; For Themselves and As Representatives of the Class of Similarly Situated Participants of the v. Tetsuya Goto

August 21, 2012

HAROLD KON; FRANCINE D. PETERS; FRANK L. THORNTON; FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PARTICIPANTS OF THE
RETIREMENT PLAN OF U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TETSUYA GOTO, AKA ALAN T. GOTO;
KATSUJI UCHIIKE; RANDELL T. YAMANE; ISAAC KUWAMURA; INDIVIDUALLY AND A FIDUCIARIES OF THE RETIREMENT PLAN OF U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC.;
U-ME ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA "U-ME TOURS"; MASUMI GOTO,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Helen Gillmor United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TETSUYA GOTO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 308)

On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 307). On August 13, 2012, Defendant TetSuya Goto filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 308).

The Motion is DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 9, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. (Doc. 1).

On December 30, 1997, the Court issued an Order approving a settlement between the Plaintiffs and all Defendants. (Doc. 108).

On February 9, 1998, the Court entered a Judgment pursuant to the Order approving the settlement. (Doc. 110).

On May 17, 2002, the Court entered an Amended Judgment that ordered and adjudged that Defendant Tetsuya Goto owed $526,228.02, with accrued interest. (Doc. 214).

On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the

Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 307).

On August 13, 2012, Defendant TetSuya Goto filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the granting of the extension of the Amended Final Judgment. (Doc. 308).

STANDARD

It is well settled in the Ninth Circuit that a successful motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, the motion must demonstrate some reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Second, the motion must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Na Mamo O 'Aha'ino v. Galiher, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1059 (D. Hawaii 1999)(citations omitted).

Courts have established only three grounds for justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in law or fact in order to prevent manifest injustice. See Mustafa v. Clark County School District, 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998); Great Hawaiian Financial Corp. v. Aiu, 116 F.R.D. 612, 616 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 863 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1988). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.