Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Evans Fruit Co Inc, No. 2:2011cv03093 - Document 323 (E.D. Wash. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 299 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (CV, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Evans Fruit Co Inc Doc. 323 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ) ) NO. CV-11-3093-LRS ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING ) MOTION FOR and ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) GREGORIO AGUILA, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs-Intervenors, ) ) v. ) ) EVANS FRUIT CO., INC. ) ) Defendant, ) ) and ) ) JUAN MARIN and ANGELITA ) MARIN, a marital community, ) ) Defendants-Intervenors. ) ______________________________ ) 20 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Evans Fruit Co., Inc.’s Motion For 21 Reconsideration Of Order Reinstating Plaintiffs’ Claims On Behalf Of Gregorio 22 Aguila (ECF No. 299). This motion is heard without oral argument. 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Defendant asks this court to reconsider its August 21, 2013 “Order Re Motion 26 For Reconsideration, Inter Alia” (ECF No. 291) which reinstated the Title VII and 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 WLAD retaliation claims of Gregorio Aguila against Defendant based solely on 2 alleged threats made by Alberto Sanchez. Pursuant to that order, the court denied 3 reconsideration of all other retaliation claims by all of the other EEOC claimants and 4 Plaintiffs-Intervenors, including Aguila’s claims to the extent based on alleged threats 5 made by Defendant-Intervenor Juan Marin. The court vacated the Judgment (ECF 6 No. 257) it entered pursuant to its April 19, 2013 “Order Re Summary Judgment 7 Motions” (ECF No. 256) which granted summary judgment to Defendant Evans Fruit 8 and Defendants-Intervenors Juan and Angelita Marin on all retaliation claims by all 9 EEOC claimants/Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the court 10 directed entry of a new final judgment in favor of Defendant Evans Fruit and 11 Defendants-Intervenors Marin on the retaliation claims of Aurelia Garcia, Wendy 12 Granados, Ambrocio Marin, Cirilo Marin, Angela Mendoza, Francisco Ramos, Elodia 13 Sanchez, Gerardo Silva and Norma Valdez, and in favor of the Marins on the claims 14 of Gregorio Aguila. That Judgment was entered on August 21, 2013. (ECF No. 293). 15 Defendant Evans Fruit filed its Motion For Reconsideration (ECF No. 299) on 16 October 18, 2013, just two days prior to expiration of the 60 day period for the parties 17 to take an appeal from the Judgment entered on August 21, 2013. Plaintiff EEOC and 18 Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed their Notices of Appeal on October 21, 2013 (ECF Nos. 19 304 and 313), and on October 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued briefing schedules 20 for those appeals (ECF Nos. 316 and 317). 21 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Defendant Evans Fruit contends Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion For Reconsideration 24 Of Order Re Summary Judgment Motions (ECF No. 279), which resulted in the 25 August 21, 2013 “Order Re Motion For Reconsideration, Inter Alia,” failed to comply 26 with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and was therefore, procedurally defective. While 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 2 1 Plaintiffs’ motion did not identify the particular civil rule on which it was based, the 2 court properly treated the motion as one brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 3 (Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment). Plaintiffs filed their motion within 28 days 4 of the Judgment entered on April 19, 2013, as required for a Rule 59(e) motion, and 5 this court evaluated the motion pursuant to the standards applicable to Rule 59(e) 6 motions. (See ECF No. 291 at p. 2). From the analysis contained in the court’s 7 August 21, 2013 “Order Re Motion For Reconsideration, Inter Alia,” it is apparent 8 the court concluded it clearly erred in determining there was no admissible evidence 9 to support Gregorio Aguila’s retaliation claims against Evans Fruit based on alleged 10 conduct by Alberto Sanchez. 11 Evans Fruit asserts its Motion For Reconsideration is properly before the court 12 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). In relevant part, Rule 60(b) provides “[o]n 13 motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal 14 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons 15 . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” “Rule 60(b)(6) has been used sparingly 16 as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land 17 & Reservoir, Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). “The rule is to be utilized only 18 where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to 19 prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. In Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co., the 20 Ninth Circuit noted as follows: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Our review of cases in this and other circuits illustrates that the courts of appeal have heeded the Supreme Court’s admonitions regarding Rule 60(b)(6); such relief is available only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a litigant from seeking earlier, more timely relief. Although the timeliness of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion “depends on the facts of each case,” relief may not be had where “the party seeking reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses.” [Citations omitted]. These cases demonstrate that Rule 60(b)(6) relief normally will not be granted unless the moving party is able to show both injury and the circumstances ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 3 beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its interests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Id. Since Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co. was decided in 1993, other circuits have continued to heed the Supreme Court’s admonitions regarding Rule 60(b)(6), and in particular using it in a fashion to bypass Rule 59(e). In Hertz Corporation v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1128 (11th Cir. 1994), the11th Circuit observed: 7 Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for instances of genuine injustice, and does not permit a party or a judge to circumvent the clear commands of Rules 6(b) and 59(e). Rule 6(b) forbids a court to enlarge the time within which a Rule 59(e) motion may be served; condoning the trial court’s use of Rule 60(b) (6) would serve to undermine finality . . . and defeat the ends of Rules 6(b) and 59(e). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 In Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 (4th Cir. 2011), the 4th Circuit observed: [W]e have repeatedly instructed that only truly “extraordinary circumstances” will permit a party successfully to invoke the “any other reason” clause of [Rule] 60(b). This very strict interpretation of Rule 60(b) is essential if the finality of judgments is to be preserved. [Citation omitted]. To give Rule 60(b)(6) broad application would undermine numerous other rules that favor the finality of judgments, such as Rule 59 (requiring that motions for new trial or to alter or amend judgment be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment); Rule 6(b)(2)(providing that a court may not extend the time to file motions under Rules 50(b), 50(d), 52(b), 59(b), 59(d), 59(e) and 60(b); and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) (requiring generally that appeals be filed within 30 days after judgment). 21 Defendant Evans Fruit could have filed a Rule 59(e) Motion To Alter Or 22 Amend Judgment within 28 days of the Judgment entered on August 21, 2013 (ECF 23 No. 293) pursuant to the “Order Re Motion For Reconsideration, Inter Alia” (ECF 24 No. 291). It did not do so, opting instead to wait nearly 60 days to file a Rule 25 60(b)(6) motion. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on which Defendant relies 26 in its motion- Vance v. Ball State University, 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 4 U.S. ,133 S.Ct. 2434 1 (2013), and University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, U.S. 2 , 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), were decided on June 24, 2013. As such, those 3 decisions were available to Defendant after this court entered its August 21, 2013 4 “Order Re Motion For Reconsideration, Inter Alia” and could have been part of a 5 timely Rule 59(e) Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment filed within 28 days of the 6 final judgment entered pursuant to that order. In sum, all of the grounds upon which 7 Defendant seeks reconsideration via a Rule 60(b)(6) motion could have been 8 presented to the court via a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion. 9 circumstances did not prevent Defendant “from seeking earlier, more timely relief” 10 and justify ignoring “normal legal recourses.” There were no circumstances beyond 11 Defendant’s control preventing it from taking timely action to protect its interests. 12 Moreover, Defendant cannot show injury because it retains an opportunity in the 13 future to present its arguments that Aguila’s retaliation claims should not proceed to 14 trial1, specifically that being when the pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit is 15 concluded, assuming the circuit agrees this court’s certification of its judgment 16 pursuant to Rule 54(b) was proper.2 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// Extraordinary 21 22 1 23 stay is lifted.” 24 2 Defendant acknowledges that its arguments can be heard “after the Court’s If the Ninth Circuit reinstates Aguila’s claims against Evans Fruit based on 25 alleged conduct by Juan Marin, this will clearly impact Aguila’s claims against 26 Evans Fruit based on alleged conduct by Sanchez. 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 5 1 2 III. CONCLUSION Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available to the Defendant. Accordingly, 3 Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Reinstating Plaintiffs’ Claims On 4 Behalf Of Gregorio Aguila (ECF No. 299) is DENIED. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Executive is directed to enter this order and forward copies of the same to counsel of record. DATED this 5th day of December, 2013. 8 9 s/Lonny R. Suko 10 LONNY R. SUKO Senior United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION- 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
