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 motions for relief from judgment and leave to seek reconsideration.
Michael Mogan, whose two motions were denied; the existing judgment was not altered.
What happened
In Mogan v. Sacks, Michael Mogan asked the court for relief from an already-entered judgment and for permission to seek reconsideration. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and decided the motions without oral argument.
The court said Mogan’s request to file a reconsideration motion was procedurally improper because judgment had already been entered. It also said he had not shown the unusual circumstances required for reconsideration. The court likewise found that Mogan had not met the demanding requirements for changing or amending the judgment.
Judge Hixson denied both motions. The opinion does not describe the underlying judgment or the claims that led to it.
The detailed version
- Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP · No. 3:21-cv-08431
- Thomas Hixson
- May 25, 2022
Background
Michael Mogan filed two motions: a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. The court found that the motions could be decided without oral argument and vacated the scheduled June 30, 2022 hearing.
Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration
The court held that Mogan’s motion for leave was procedurally improper because Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires such a motion to be filed before entry of a judgment resolving all claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities. Judgment had already been entered in this case.
The court also considered the substance of Mogan’s request and found that he had not established the highly unusual circumstances required for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is generally disfavored and ordinarily requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court denied the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Motion for Relief from Judgment
The court described altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) as an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly. The recognized grounds discussed by the court were: a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a manifestly unjust decision, or an intervening change in controlling law.
The court found that Mogan had not established grounds for this extraordinary remedy. It therefore denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied both Mogan’s motion for relief from judgment and his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state what the underlying judgment decided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.