Whitaker v. MZM Fakhouri, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-03327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. MZM Fakhouri, Inc., Judge Davila denied leave to seek reconsideration and denied Plaintiff’s request to stay the case.
Brian Whitaker and MZM Fakhouri, Inc.; the earlier order requiring a fees-and-costs summary and reimbursement remained operative.
What happened
In Whitaker v. MZM Fakhouri, Inc., the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider an earlier order requiring him to provide a summary of fees and costs and reimburse defense counsel for preparing an administrative motion.
The plaintiff had initially failed to provide the requested summary under General Order 56, although he later complied. The defendant argued that the court should still consider its motion because it had incurred costs before the later compliance.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied leave to seek reconsideration because the plaintiff did not show newly established law, clear error, or an unjust result. Judge Davila also denied the plaintiff’s request to stay the case while seeking extraordinary relief from the Ninth Circuit, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. MZM Fakhouri, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-03327
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 28, 2021
Background
After Plaintiff contacted Defendant with a settlement demand, Defendant requested a summary of fees and costs under General Order 56. Plaintiff initially failed to provide the summary, which led Defendant to file an administrative motion for relief. Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike portions of Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff later provided the summary, but Defendant asked the Court to decide whether sanctions were appropriate because the late production did not address the costs of bringing the administrative motion.
In an earlier order, the Court determined that Defendant was entitled to the summary and ordered Plaintiff to provide it and reimburse defense counsel for the costs of preparing the administrative motion. The Court stated that Defendant should not have had to spend money to force compliance with General Order 56.
Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff requested leave to seek reconsideration of the earlier order. The Court explained that reconsideration is generally appropriate only when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust initial decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. The Court found that Plaintiff had not shown that the sanctions decision was contrary to newly established law, clearly erroneous, or unjust. It therefore DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for leave to seek reconsideration.
Request for a Stay
Alternatively, Plaintiff requested a stay so he could seek a writ from the Ninth Circuit. The Court considered whether Plaintiff was likely to succeed, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure Defendant, and whether the public interest favored a stay. The Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had declined to issue a writ in a prior, similar case involving Plaintiff. Finding that Plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the Court DENIED Plaintiff’s request to stay the case.
Disposition
The Court denied both requests: leave to seek reconsideration and a stay of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.