Stewart v. Department of Consumer Affairs of California

Background

The court had previously dismissed Selene Fumie Stewart’s First Amended Complaint and entered judgment. Stewart then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and the court’s local rule. Because judgment had already been entered, the court treated the motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), which govern changing a judgment or obtaining relief from a final judgment.

The earlier dismissal dismissed Stewart’s amended complaint with prejudice. The claims concerned, among other things, the Department of Consumer Affairs’ handling of her nursing-license reinstatement applications and earlier events involving revocation of her license.

Arguments and Analysis

Stewart argued that the Department violated procedural due process by denying her application for reinstatement on May 13, 2019, without holding a hearing scheduled for May 16, 2019. The court rejected this as a basis for reconsideration because it had already considered and rejected the argument. The earlier order explained that the absence of a hearing on a third reinstatement application, standing alone, did not establish a due-process violation, particularly because Stewart acknowledged that she had previously received at least one hearing. The court also stated that it was not aware of authority requiring a hearing for a third attempt to regain a property interest when an earlier pre- or post-deprivation hearing had been provided.

Stewart also challenged the court’s treatment of alleged misconduct from 2007 to 2009. The court explained that the language she identified was part of the earlier order’s summary of allegations from her complaint, not a finding that she had newly raised those allegations. In any event, the court reiterated that claims arising from incidents between 2007 and 2009 were time-barred.

Finally, Stewart argued that the appointment of the administrative-law judge who presided over her license revocation violated the Constitution. The court stated that it had already considered and rejected that argument.

Ruling

The court denied Stewart’s motion for reconsideration. It held that she had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, a manifestly unjust initial decision, an intervening change in controlling law, or extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from judgment. The court also concluded that the motion did not satisfy the local reconsideration standard. The order disposed of Docket No. 16.