J.H. et al v. Baldovinos et al
Filing
271
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 238 Motion for Unredacted Copy of 232 Order; denying without prejudice 240 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 241 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 241 Motion to Amend/Correct; deny ing 242 Motion to Strike; granting 253 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 255 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; striking 256 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; striking 258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
BELINDA K. and J.H., her minor son,
Petitioners,
12
13
v.
YOLANDA BALDOVINOS, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDER OR
JUDGMENT UNDER FRCP 59(e) AND
DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND ORDER OR JUDGMENT
UNDER FRCP 60(b)
(re: dkt #: 238, 240, 241, 242, 253, 255,
256, 258)
Petitioner Belinda K. (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, moves pursuant to Federal Rules of
18
Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for reconsideration of this Court’s Order Denying Petitioner’s
19
Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Respondents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
20
See ECF No. 241 (“Motion for Reconsideration”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for
21
resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing set for August 9, 2012. See
22
Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ submissions and the Court’s prior ruling, the
23
Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
24
25
I.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns state court dependency proceedings concerning Petitioner’s son, J.H., an
26
Indian child as defined by the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.
27
(“ICWA”). With the assistance of appointed pro bono counsel, Petitioner brought this petition
28
pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1914, alleging various violations of ICWA in her son’s dependency
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
1
proceedings and seeking invalidation of several state court orders. See ECF No. 73 (Order
2
Appointing Pro Bono Counsel); ECF 170 (“First Am. Petition”). On February 13, 2012, the Court
3
issued an Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Respondents’
4
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment Order”), disposing of the entire action in
5
full. 1 See ECF No. 232. The facts of this case can be found in the Court’s February 13, 2012
6
Summary Judgment Order, see ECF No. 232 & 233, and will not be recounted here.
7
Pursuant to the Court’s February 13, 2012 Order, Judgment was entered in favor of
8
Respondents and against Petitioner on February 21, 2012, and the case was terminated. That same
9
day, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Summary
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Judgment Order and All Related Interlocutory Orders. ECF No. 236. On February 27, 2012,
11
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, timely filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rules 59(e) and
12
60(b), prompting the Ninth Circuit to issue an order holding the appellate proceedings in abeyance
13
pending this Court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 241 (Motion for
14
Reconsideration); ECF No. 269 (Ninth Cir. Order).
15
II.
16
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
In connection with her motion for reconsideration, Petitioner has filed two requests for
17
judicial notice, as well as several administrative motions to file documents under seal.
18
Specifically, Petitioner seeks to file under seal: (1) her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No.
19
240 (sealing motion); ECF No. 241 (motion for reconsideration filed under seal in its entirety); (2)
20
a request for judicial notice in support of her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 255 (sealing
21
motion); ECF No. 259 (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)); and (3) a second request for judicial
22
notice in support of her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 253 (sealing motion); ECF No.
23
257 (Second Request for Judicial Notice (“2d RJN”)). 2
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court mailed an unredacted copy of the Summary Judgment Order to Petitioner’s pro bono
counsel. See ECF No. 233-1 (Certificate of Service). It appears that Petitioner was unable to
obtain a copy of the unredacted order from her former counsel, and Petitioner has thus filed a
Motion for an Unredacted Copy of the Order (ECF No. 238), which the Court GRANTS.
2
Petitioner filed duplicates of several documents. The Court therefore STRIKES the following
redundant materials: (1) ECF No. 256, which is a duplicate of ECF No. 255; and (2) ECF No. 258,
which is a duplicate of ECF No. 253.
2
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
1
Petitioner’s proposed redactions of her Request for Judicial Notice and her Second Request
2
for Judicial Notice conform to the Court’s prior rulings in this case concerning redactions, see ECF
3
No. 222, and are narrowly tailored to seal only the minor’s identity and confidential information
4
that would reasonably lead to the minor’s identity. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions to file these
5
documents under seal (ECF Nos. 255 and 253) are GRANTED. Petitioner shall publicly re-file
6
ECF Nos. 259 and 257 in their redacted form.
7
However, Petitioner’s request to file her motion for reconsideration under seal in its entirety
8
is overbroad and is not narrowly tailored to seal only the minor’s identity and confidential
9
information that would reasonably lead to the minor’s identity. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
file her motion for reconsideration under seal (ECF No. 240) is DENIED without prejudice.
11
Petitioner shall submit a new, narrowly tailored motion to file portions of her motion for
12
reconsideration under seal within 14 days of the date of this Order. Petitioner must comply with
13
the requirements set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5.
14
15
III.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may appropriately be brought under
16
either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
17
60(b); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871
18
F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868 (1989)). The district court generally
19
applies the same analysis under both rules, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See
20
Fidelity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing Rule
21
60(b)); Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1441 (discussing Rule 59(e)).
22
Under Rule 59(e), “reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
23
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,
24
or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty.,
25
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see Snider v. Greater
26
Nev. LLC, 426 F. App’x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Rule 60(b), reconsideration is permitted
27
upon a showing of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
28
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
3
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
1
trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
2
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
3
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
4
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies
5
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under the sixth category “requires a finding of ‘extraordinary
6
circumstances.’” Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting McConnell
7
v. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan, 759 F.2d 1401, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985)).
8
Here, Petitioner has filed a lengthy motion challenging the Court’s Summary Judgment
Order. 3 Petitioner seeks reconsideration and relief from judgment on the following grounds: (1)
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
the Court’s Summary Judgment Order relied on inadmissible hearsay and was not supported by
11
sufficient evidence; (2) Respondents misrepresented the law and the facts, causing manifest
12
injustice; (3) California’s Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) §§ 281 and 355 violate the Sixth
13
Amendment’s Confrontation Clause; and (4) Petitioner’s pro bono counsel provided ineffective
14
assistance of counsel.
15
None of Petitioner’s grounds for reconsideration meet the standard for relief under Rules
16
59(e) and 60(b). First, Petitioner’s objections to and motion to strike the declarations of Geri
17
Isaacson and Linda Fuchs and the deposition of Cheryl Smith (ECF No. 242), which were offered
18
by Respondents in opposition to Petitioner’s original summary judgment motion, are untimely, and
19
the motion to strike is therefore DENIED. Petitioner could have raised these evidentiary objections
20
earlier but did not do so. See Civ. L. R. 7-3 (providing that evidentiary and procedural objections
21
to any motion must be raised in the opposition or the reply, as appropriate).
22
Petitioner next asserts that Respondents misrepresented the law and the facts, and that the
23
Court’s summary judgment ruling is not supported by sufficient evidence. Petitioner’s arguments
24
are either duplicative of arguments already previously made and carefully considered by the Court
25
in its summary judgment ruling, or are based on facts and argument that could have been, but were
26
not, raised during the summary judgment proceedings. With the exception of Exhibit G to
27
3
28
Petitioner’s Motion is over 50 pages, more than twice the length permitted under Civil Local Rule
7-2(b). Petitioner is reminded that she must comply with all Federal and Local Civil Rules.
4
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s Second RJN, all of the exhibits that Petitioner submits in support of her motion for
2
reconsideration were previously available and therefore are not proper grounds for reconsideration.
3
Exhibit G to the Second RJN consists of four minute orders from Juvenile Court between
4
November 2011 and February 2012, which were not previously available, but these exhibits do not
5
alter the Court’s analysis of the Juvenile Court’s January 2, 2007 Jurisdictional Order, April 5,
6
2007 Disposition Order, or January 14, 2008 Order Terminating Family Reunification Services.
7
Accordingly, the Court declines to take judicial notice of these documents. “[A] party that fails to
8
introduce facts in a motion or opposition cannot introduce them later in a motion to amend [under
9
Rule 59(e)] by claiming that they constitute ‘newly discovered evidence’ unless they were
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
previously unavailable.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)
11
(citations omitted).
12
Third, Petitioner raises a new claim that WIC §§ 281 and 355 violate her Sixth Amendment
13
right to confront witnesses against her. As an initial matter, the Court notes that “[t]he protections
14
provided by the Sixth Amendment are explicitly confined to ‘criminal prosecutions.’” Austin v.
15
United States, 509 U.S. 602, 608 (1993). This matter is a civil proceeding, and therefore the Sixth
16
Amendment is inapplicable. More importantly, however, a motion for reconsideration under Rules
17
59(e) and 60(b) is an improper vehicle for bringing new claims not previously raised. See Willis v.
18
Mullins, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“As a general matter, a motion to reconsider
19
is not a vehicle for parties to make new arguments that could have been raised in their original
20
briefs.”) (citing Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at, 740). “A district court does not abuse its discretion when
21
it disregards legal arguments made for the first time on a motion to amend.” Zimmerman, 255 F.3d
22
at 740 (citing Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Fed.
23
Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986) (“[Rule 59 and Rule 60] motions
24
cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
25
issued. Moreover they cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory.”) (citations
26
omitted). The Court therefore declines to consider Petitioner’s new constitutional claim based on
27
the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
28
5
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
1
Finally, Petitioner’s fourth and final ground for reconsideration is without merit. Petitioner
2
was well represented in this matter by Court-appointed pro bono counsel who vigorously litigated
3
this case and zealously advocated on Petitioner’s behalf for her requested relief. Petitioner has not
4
identified any deficiencies in her counsel’s performance that render the Court’s disposition
5
manifestly unjust.
6
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and motion to alter or
8
amend judgment pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) is DENIED.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
Dated: August 7, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 10-CV-02507-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
