Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-03512
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hadsell v. United States, Judge Demarchi denied Hadsell’s Rule 60 motion because the challenged order was not final and lacked required permission.
Christopher Hadsell, whose motion seeking relief from the earlier denial of summary judgment was denied.
What happened
In Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury, Christopher Hadsell asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion for summary judgment. He based the request on a rule that allows relief from a final judgment or order.
The court denied the motion because the earlier denial of summary judgment was not final. It also denied reconsideration as procedurally improper because Hadsell had not obtained permission required by the court’s local rules. The court further found that he repeated earlier arguments and did not identify overlooked facts, new material facts, or a change in the law.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered the order on December 13, 2021. The order denied Hadsell’s Rule 60(b) motion.
The detailed version
- Hadsell v. United States of America, the Department of Treasury · No. 5:20-cv-03512
- Virginia Demarchi
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
The court had previously denied Christopher Hadsell’s motion for summary judgment on November 19, 2021. Hadsell then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), seeking to alter, amend, or vacate that order. The court denied that motion because Rule 59(e) was not the proper procedure for reconsidering a pre-judgment order and directed Hadsell to seek permission before filing a reconsideration motion under Civil Local Rule 7-9.
Instead, Hadsell filed another reconsideration motion, this time under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Hadsell also referred to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which concerns a court’s manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before an interlocutory order.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that Rule 60(b) did not apply because the November 19 order denying summary judgment was not final and did not finally resolve any issue in the case. The court rejected Hadsell’s reliance on authority concerning appellate review of summary-judgment denials and motions to amend judgments.
The court separately held that Hadsell’s reconsideration request was procedurally improper because Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before noticing such a motion. The court also found that Hadsell repeated arguments from his summary-judgment motion, expressed disagreement with the court’s ruling without identifying overlooked dispositive facts or issues, and did not identify new material facts or a change in law that would support reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied Hadsell’s Rule 60(b) motion. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order on December 13, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.