United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 18, 2019, the Court issued an Order Overruling
Plaintiff's Objections and Adopting the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations to Enforce
Settlement (“Order”). ECF No. 130. Plaintiff
Mario Cooper (“Plaintiff”) now asks the Court to
vacate its Order. ECF No. 131. This matter shall be decided
without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.1(d) of the Local Rules
of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii (“Local Rules”). For the reasons
articulated below, the Motion is DENIED.
argues that (1) because the settlement of his Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim was not a fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute, enforcement of
the settlement contravened FLSA principles; (2) the Motion
deserves special consideration because it involves
substantial labor rights; and (3) the Findings and
Recommendations (“F&R”) did not contain
language about the objection period and waiver. None of these
arguments provide a basis for reconsideration.
Rule 60.1 governs motions for reconsideration, which are
disfavored. Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 59(e) for the relief sought,
but FRCP 59(e) governs motions to alter or amend a judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Judgment has not entered
here. FRCP 60(b) provides relief from final judgments,
orders, or proceedings on the following grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60 reconsideration is generally
appropriate in three instances: (1) when there has been an
intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has
come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error
or prevent manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993);
Sierra Club, Haw. Chapter v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 486 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1188 (D. Haw. 2007)
(“The Ninth Circuit has recognized that Rule 60(b) may
be used to reconsider legal issues and to reconsider the
court's own mistake or inadvertence.”).
Ninth Circuit requires that a successful motion for
reconsideration accomplish two goals. “First, a motion
for reconsideration 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.” Jacob v. United States, 128
F.Supp.2d 638, 641 (D. Haw. 2000) (citing Decker Coal Co.
v. Hartman, 706 F.Supp. 745, 750 (D. Mont. 1988))
(citation omitted). Mere disagreement with a court's
analysis in a previous order is not a sufficient basis for
reconsideration. See White v. Sabatino, 424
F.Supp.2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006) (citing Leong v.
Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988));
Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363
F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to
grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of
the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041,
1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to
reconsideration, nor has he set forth facts or law of
strongly convincing nature to compel reversal of the Order.
Local Rule 60.1 prohibits parties from “repeat[ing]
arguments already made, unless necessary to present one or
more of the permissible grounds for the reconsideration
request.” Local Rule 60.1. The Motion consists of the
same arguments already considered and rejected by this Court
and the Magistrate Judge. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52
F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a Rule 60(b)
motion was properly denied because the plaintiff merely
reiterated the arguments he already presented). Plaintiff
clearly disagrees with the Order and the F&R, but that
cannot serve as a basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff did
not even raise certain of the present arguments in his
Objections to the F&R. See Figy v. Amy's ...