Opinion
Case No.: 2:16-cv-02046-JAD-NJK
03-25-2021
Louis A. Cardinali, Plaintiff v. Plusfour, Inc., et al., Defendants
Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration, Setting Briefing Schedule, and Scheduling Hearing [ECF No. 211]
In September 2019, I granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., dismissing Louis Cardinali's claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because I found that Cardinali's claims failed as a matter of law, I denied as moot multiple pending motions, including Experian's motion for monetary sanctions and to initiate contempt proceedings against Haines & Krieger, LLC; David Krieger; and Haines & Krieger's counsel, Miles N. Clark and Matthew I. Knepper. Experian moves for partial reconsideration, arguing that my finding was erroneous because a successful summary-judgment ruling does not moot a sanctions motion seeking compensatory damages. Haines & Krieger and their counsel do not oppose Experian's motion on the merits; instead, they argue that Experian's motion suffers from supposed technical deficiencies. Because I find that denying the sanctions motion was clear error, I grant Experian's motion for reconsideration and direct Experian to re-urge its request for sanctions consistent with this order.
ECF No. 208.
Id. at 29-30 (mooting motion for sanctions (ECF No. 190)).
ECF No. 211 (motion for reconsideration).
ECF No. 212 at 4.
Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, a court may "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." A motion for reconsideration is generally appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence or has committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. "A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments;" instead, a party seeking reconsideration must present "facts or law of a strongly convincing nature" that provide a "valid reason" why reconsideration is appropriate. Experian argues that I committed clear error when I denied its sanctions motion as moot, instead of addressing the merits of its claims.
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).
Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).
My 2019 order erroneously denied Experian's sanctions motion. "Even where one issue in a case has been rendered moot, others may remain." As the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held, a motion for compensatory sanctions, as opposed to coercive sanctions, can survive the end of a dispute. So I vacate my summary judgment order insofar as it improperly mooted Experian's motion for sanctions and will address that motion on the merits.
Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2016).
Id. at 630 ("[T]he justification for this bright-line distinction between compensatory and coercive contempts arises out of their disparate purposes. Once an injunction has been terminated, a court may still award compensation to the plaintiff as a result of injuries caused by its opponent's contumacy."); Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 650 F.2d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 1980), amended (9th Cir. June 2, 1980) (explaining that the "possibility of compensatory damage liability" arising from "civil[-]contempt adjudication" prevented an action from becoming moot).
But I ask that Experian re-urge its request, given that (1) this case's posture has changed dramatically since Experian filed its original sanctions motion—the case has been resolved in Experian's favor; (2) my summary judgment order mooted pending discovery-order objections, which may bear on Experian's sanctions motion; and (3) the alleged discovery misconduct that Experian identified may have had limited import to the ultimate disposition of this matter. I direct Experian to quantify its request for compensatory sanctions in the motion, with any necessary supporting documentation, so that the parties may address the reasonableness of the sanctions sought. I also ask that the parties refrain from tit-for-tat exchanges regarding H&K and its counsel's supposed malfeasance—a simple recitation of the supposed misconduct, with a response that either disputes its accuracy or excuses the behavior, will be more useful.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Experian's motion for partial reconsideration [ECF No. 211] is GRANTED. The portion of my September 26, 2019, order denying Experian's motion for sanctions as moot [ECF No. 208] is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Experian must file its renewed motion for sanctions by April 9, 2021. Any response and reply must be filed by the deadlines established in Local Rule 7-2(b). If Experian does not file its motion, its request for sanctions will be deemed abandoned and denied with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Experian's motion will be held on May 21, 2021, at 10:00 am.
/s/_________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
March 25, 2021