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.

McAllister v. Adecco Group N.A.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 19, 2018

WILLIS C. MCALLISTER, Plaintiff,
v.
ADECCO GROUP N.A., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          DERRICK K. WATSON, JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Willis C. McAllister's Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 400. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d). For the reasons discussed below, McAllister's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On November 21, 2018, this Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (“November 21 Order”), and the Clerk entered Judgment. ECF Nos. 396, 397. On December 5, 2018, McAllister filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the November 21 Order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6). ECF No. 400. On December 16, 2018, McAllister filed a Notice of Appeal of multiple rulings, including the November 21 Order and Judgment. ECF No. 401.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Jurisdiction

         Because McAllister appealed the November 21 Order and Judgment, along with other rulings in this case, the Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to address McAllister's Motion. Generally, “[o]nce a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). An exception to this general rule is that a notice of appeal does not divest a district court of jurisdiction to rule on a timely-filed motion for reconsideration. See United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)).[1]

         Here, Plaintiff timely filed his Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b), prior to filing his Notice of Appeal. Thus, the Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the Motion.

         B. Standard of Review

         A district court can reconsider final judgments or orders pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) (governing motions to alter or amend judgments) or 60(b) (governing motions for relief from a final judgment). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment is considered under Rule 59(e); a later-filed motion is considered under Rule 60(b). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Because McAllister filed his Motion within twenty-eight days of judgment, the Court analyzes his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e).[2]

         Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration may be appropriate “(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Mere disagreement with a previous order is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration. White v. Sabatino, 424 F.Supp. 2d. 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006); Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). And although a “district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e)[, ]” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003), “amending a judgment after its entry remains ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly, '” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111.

         C. Reconsideration

         McAllister appears to argue that reconsideration of the November 21 Order is necessary to correct clear error set ...


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.