United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIS C. MCALLISTER, Plaintiff,
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.
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.
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
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)).
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
Standard of Review
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
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.
appears to argue that reconsideration of the November 21
Order is necessary to correct clear error set ...