United States District Court, D. Hawaii
GLEN M. WINTERBOTTOM, Plaintiff,
DAVID T. UNDERRINER, in his official capacity as President of Kaiser foundation Health Plan and Hospitals of Hawaii; CATHERINE A. KORTZEBORN, in her official capacity as Deputy Regional Administrator of U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Region 9 - San Francisco, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CATHERINE A.
KORTZEBORN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 3, 2019, the Court issued an Order Granting
Defendant Catherine A. Kortzeborn's Motion to Dismiss
Complaint (“Order”). ECF No. 44. Plaintiff Glen
M. Winterbottom (“Plaintiff”) seeks
reconsideration of the Order. ECF No. 45. 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.
Rule 60.1 governs motions for reconsideration, which are
disfavored. Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b)(6), which provides
relief from final judgments, orders, or proceedings for any
reason justifying relief. 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.
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.
The Motion consists of the same arguments already considered
and rejected by the Court on multiple occasions. 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; see also 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, but that cannot serve as a
basis for reconsideration. And the arguments that he presents
for the first time in the Motion are not properly before the
Court. See Figy v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc, No. C
13-03816-SI, 2014 WL 3362178, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2014)
(stating that a “Rule 60(b) motion cannot be used to
present new arguments that could have been raised prior to
the entry of judgment”).
takes issue with the Court's limited and conclusory
analysis in its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant David T.
Underriner's Motion to Dismiss Complaint. However, the
Court need not rehash and re-explain legal issues that it
already resolved in the orders that are the subject of
Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, particularly
when Plaintiff's challenges are based on a
misapprehension of the applicable law and the Court's
legal analyses. For these reasons, the Court DENIES
on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration.
 For example, Plaintiff asserts that he
“has never similarly once stated or even suggested that
CMS is a ‘Public Accommodation,' as was implied in
the Court's most recent Order, contending only that
Defendant Kaiser's alleged ADA violations were unlawfully
approved by that agency, and obviously cannot be remedied
without it's [sic] participation.” Mot. at 6. Yet
his Complaint expressly accuses CMS of discrimination under
the ADA provision governing places of public accommodation:
“In the case at bar, the ‘class' of disabled
individuals being discriminated against by Defendants is all
such persons needing MA coverage living within the three
excluded ZIP Code ...