Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07576
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kimner v. Poissant, Judge Davila denied Kimner’s reconsideration motion and allowed her to amend claims against Poissant by February 28, 2020.
The ruling affected Audrey L. Kimner’s request to revisit the court’s earlier decision. It left her able to amend her claims against Margaret A. Poissant by February 28, 2020, while certain other defendants had already been dismissed from the action.
What happened
In Kimner v. Poissant, the court had earlier ruled that a legal doctrine called Rooker-Feldman prevented Audrey L. Kimner from proceeding against certain defendants, but allowed her to amend her complaint against Margaret A. Poissant.
Kimner then filed a motion asking the court to cancel that earlier decision. The court treated the filing as a request for reconsideration because it challenged the earlier ruling. Kimner’s filing relied on the same factual allegations as her earlier motions.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the motion because Kimner did not show a change in the law, a clear error, or new important facts. The court stated that Kimner could still file an amended complaint against Poissant by February 28, 2020, but warned that the claims could be dismissed if the amended complaint did not correct the identified deficiencies.
The detailed version
- Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC · No. 5:19-cv-07576
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
On January 29, 2020, the court ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented Audrey L. Kimner from proceeding with her case and dismissed certain defendants. The court granted Kimner leave to amend her complaint against the one defendant whom it said was not affected by that doctrine: Margaret A. Poissant.
On February 5, 2020, Kimner filed a motion to vacate the court’s decision to release certain defendants. The court interpreted that filing as a motion for reconsideration.
Legal standard
Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration may be appropriate if there is a material difference in facts or law, the court made a clear error or the prior decision was manifestly unjust, or new material facts or a material change in law arose after the earlier order. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Kimner had not shown a change in law, clear error, or new material facts. It also found that her motion focused on the same factual allegations as her earlier motions. Accordingly, Judge Edward J. Davila denied Kimner’s request for reconsideration.
The court stated that Kimner could still file an amended complaint against Poissant by February 28, 2020. It warned that the court would dismiss Kimner’s claims against Poissant if the amended complaint did not correct the deficiencies identified in the order. The court also urged Kimner to seek help from the federal Pro Se Program.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.