(PS) Dodenhoff v. Cache Creek Foods, LLC et al, No. 2:2015cv00107 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 06/25/15 ORDERING that the 21 Petition to Abandon the 18 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations is DENIED. (Benson, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Dodenhoff v. Cache Creek Foods, LLC et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DENNIS A. DODENHOFF, in pro per with reservation of all rights; Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. No. 2:15-cv-00107-MCE-KJN ORDER CACHE CREEK FOODS, LLC et al; J L PAULE, Operations Manager, ACS Support; and DOES 1 thru 30; Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Dennis Dodenhoff, proceeding in pro se, filed the instant action to 20 challenge the federal tax levy on his wages served by Defendant Tammy L. Pauler 21 (erroneously named as Defendant J L Paule) on Plaintiff’s former employer, Defendant 22 Cache Creek Foods, LLC. Plaintiff claims that the levy was improper and 23 unconstitutional and sought to collect outstanding income tax liabilities that Plaintiff did 24 not owe. 25 The Federal Defendants (Defendant Pauler and the United States as real party in 26 interest) moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 27 assigned Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be granted on sovereign 28 immunity grounds. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the only remaining 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 defendant, Cache Creek, also be dismissed on grounds that it was immune from liability 2 for complying with the IRS Notice of Levy. By Order signed May 15, 2015, the 3 undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations in full, dismissed the case, 4 and entered judgment on Defendants’ behalf. ECF No. 18. 5 Thereafter, on June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed the “Petition to Abandon the Order of 6 the Court Dated May 13, 2015.” The Court will construe that Petition as a request for 7 reconsideration. 8 9 Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which 10 did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff’s instant 11 request fails to meet that standard. Plaintiff provides absolutely no new or different facts 12 or circumstances indicating that reconsideration is appropriate. Instead, Plaintiff simply 13 rehashes the same legal issues that have already been decided against him. Mere 14 dissatisfaction with the court’s order, or belief that the court is wrong in its decision, is not 15 grounds for relief. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 16 (9th Cir. 1981). Motions for reconsideration are not intended to “give an unhappy litigant 17 one additional chance to sway the judge.” Kilgore v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-1792-CKD, 18 2013 WL 5425313, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013) (quoting Frito-Lay of P.R., Inc. v. 19 Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.P.R. 1981)). 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Petition (ECF No. 21) is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 25, 2015 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
