Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:21-cv-08431
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mogan v. Sacks, Judge Hixson denied Mogan’s request to seek reconsideration of a prior order imposing Rule 11 sanctions.
Michael Mogan’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration was denied. The opinion concerns his challenge to the court’s earlier order imposing Rule 11 sanctions.
What happened
In Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Michael Mogan asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its January 12, 2022 order imposing Rule 11 sanctions. He argued that the court had failed to consider important facts and legal arguments.
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only on limited grounds, such as new facts, a change in the law, or a serious failure to consider important facts or legal arguments. A party also may not use reconsideration to repeat arguments already made or arguments that could have been made earlier.
The court found that Mogan’s arguments had either been raised earlier or could have been raised earlier. Judge Thomas Hixson also noted that Mogan had made nearly identical arguments in a pending motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court denied Mogan’s motion for permission to file a reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP · No. 3:21-cv-08431
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Michael Mogan sought leave, meaning permission, to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 12, 2022 order imposing sanctions under Rule 11. Mogan argued that the court had failed to consider material facts and dispositive legal arguments. The opinion also states that Mogan had a pending motion to alter or amend the judgment raising nearly identical arguments.
Legal standard
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, reconsideration before entry of final judgment may be based on: (1) a material difference in fact or law that the moving party could not have known about with reasonable diligence; (2) new material facts or a change in the law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court stated that reconsideration motions are disfavored and generally require newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The rule also prohibits using reconsideration to raise arguments that were previously made or could have been raised earlier.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Mogan’s motion consisted entirely of arguments he had raised earlier or could have raised earlier. The court stated that if Mogan disagreed with the substance of the sanctions order, the proper procedure was to appeal it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court also found it unnecessary to have the same issues briefed in both the reconsideration motion and the pending motion to alter or amend the judgment. Judge Thomas Hixson therefore denied Mogan’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.