Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2020

Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:19-cv-07576
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Kimner v. Capital Title, Judge Davila denied Kimner’s reconsideration motion because she had not sought permission and offered no newly discovered evidence.

Who this affects

Audrey L. Kimner’s request to reconsider the earlier dismissal was denied; the order also refers to Capital Title of Texas, LLC, et al. as defendants.

What happened

Audrey L. Kimner asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that dismissed her claims with prejudice. She had also appealed that earlier order.

The court treated her filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration because she was representing herself. It denied the request because she had not first sought permission as required by the court’s local rules, and because the evidence she offered was already in her possession.

In Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC, Judge Edward J. Davila denied the motion for reconsideration. This order did not reconsider the earlier dismissal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC · No. 5:19-cv-07576
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
June 25, 2020

Background

The court considered Audrey L. Kimner’s motion asking it to reconsider a March 2020 order that dismissed her claims with prejudice. Kimner had appealed that earlier order. She was representing herself.

Court’s reasoning

Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, a party must first seek permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court interpreted Kimner’s filing as a request for that permission because of her self-represented status. The court stated that Kimner’s failure to follow this required procedure was independently enough to deny the request.

Kimner also offered evidence that she already possessed when she originally filed her motion. The court held that this evidence was not newly discovered and therefore did not support reconsideration. The court did not address the merits of the underlying claims in this order.

Disposition

The court denied Kimner’s motion for reconsideration. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on June 25, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.