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.

Marn v. McCully Associates

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 31, 2013

ALEXANDER Y. MARN, as an individual, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
MCCULLY ASSOCIATES, a Hawai'i registered Limited Partnership, et al. Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DERRICK K. WATSON, Judge.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION

On October 31, 2013, the Court granted two motions to dismiss in this matter: (1) Defendants Thomas E. Hayes as Court Appointed and Liquidating Receiver, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, a Law Corporation, M Pocket Corporation, and Sofos Realty Corporation's Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Defendants James Y. Marn, Jr. and James K.M. Dunn's Motion to Dismiss. On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff Alexander Y. Marn filed a Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion"). On November 29, 2013, Plaintiff Eric Y. Marn filed a Joinder in the Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After careful consideration of the supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The parties and the Court are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural background in this matter, and the Court does not recount it here. In the Motion and Joinder, Plaintiffs argue that the Court improperly granted Defendants' motions to dismiss and did not allow Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint.

In the October 31, 2013 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Briefly, the Court found that the Receiver is immune from liability for his conduct carrying out his duly-appointed receivership duties; and, even assuming that the Receiver's conduct was beyond the scope of his state court-appointed authority, Plaintiffs' claims based on the purportedly unauthorized conduct accrued prior to December 17, 2010 and are time-barred. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs' Count I, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Receiver, failed as a matter of law. Because the Court concluded that the only federal claim that could support subject matter jurisdiction-Count I's Section 1983 claim-was facially invalid, and the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims, the Court dismissed the Complaint.

DISCUSSION

This district court recognizes three grounds for granting reconsideration of an order: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006) (citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist ., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Plaintiff offers four reasons why this Court should reconsider its October 31, 2013 Order:

(1) The Court erred as a matter of law in holding that the Receiver has absolute judicial immunity from liability for his conduct in carrying out his duly-appointed receivership duties;

(2) The Court erred in holding that the Receiver's conduct was not beyond the scope of his state court-appointed authority and that Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on such conduct was time-barred;
(3) The Court erred in concluding that a two-year statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims where Plaintiffs alleged improper conduct during the two-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint; and
(4) The Court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice, rather than allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend to file a third amended complaint. Motion at 5-6. Because all of these reasons are without merit, the Motion is DENIED.

The Motion presents essentially the same facts and arguments made during the Court's consideration of the two motions to dismiss. It is clear from the Motion that Plaintiffs simply disagree with the Court's rulings in the October 31, 2013 Order, and "[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration." White, 424 ...


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.