TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC v. Village of Pomona

Background

TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC and Avrohom Manes sued the Village of Pomona and several individual defendants. In an earlier order, the court dismissed some claims with prejudice because they were barred by claim preclusion, also called res judicata, based on a prior lawsuit. The court dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to amend. The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the claim-preclusion ruling.

Standard for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. It may be granted when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It may not be used to present new arguments or relitigate issues already decided.

Analysis

The plaintiffs made four arguments. First, they argued that claim preclusion should not apply to claims involving properties other than 22 High Mountain Road. The court rejected that argument because the claims involved the same plaintiffs, the same Village officials, the same alleged reason—religious hostility toward Orthodox Jews—the same alleged tactics of selective code enforcement and harassment, and the same general time period. The court concluded that the claims arose from the same related set of facts as the prior lawsuit. It also stated that the plaintiffs were repeating arguments already considered and rejected.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that the court had improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court explained that the defendants had the burden to establish claim preclusion and had met that burden. The court found no error in its conclusion that most of the allegations could have been raised in the earlier lawsuit.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that the court had overlooked allegations about destroyed or concealed records, newly discovered information, and claims unrelated to 22 High Mountain Road. The court concluded that the alleged concealment did not identify evidence that could not have been raised earlier, that it had already considered the allegedly new facts, and that it had already determined that the claims involving other properties were related to the prior claims. The court also noted that its earlier order had made an exception for allegations in paragraphs 283 through 305 concerning alleged discrimination by Ian Banks.

Fourth, the plaintiffs argued that the court had misapplied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court stated that it had assumed the complaint’s factual allegations were true and had drawn the required reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the court should have assumed an unstated reason why information could not have been obtained from people who allegedly possessed it.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It also denied the plaintiffs’ requests for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), alternative relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and an extension of time to file an amended complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 172 and close the case.