Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mangeac v. Armstrong

October 19, 2010

MARGARETA MANGEAC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; DAVID TAYLOR IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; RICHARD HUMISTON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; STEVE BELLOMY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; SUSAN ALTMAN IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The Court has before it several pending motions. After oral argument and an evidentiary hearing, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this Section 1983 action, alleging that Defendants violated her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when they added her name to the Idaho Adult Protection Registry ("Registry"), a state registry of vulnerable adult abusers, and maintained her name on the Registry despite her request to have it removed.*fn1 On March 1, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and Mangeac filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Notably, Defendants' counsel failed to submit a brief in support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He also failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima, sitting by designation, conducted oral argument and issued an opinion on the motions. Judge Tashima denied Defendants' motion, granted in part Plaintiff's motion, and ordered the parties to meet in good faith to reach agreement on a proposed form of declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.

Defendants hired new counsel after receiving Judge Tashima's decision. After a meeting between Defendants' new counsel, Plaintiff's counsel, and the Court's staff, the Court agreed to stay the requirement that the parties submit a proposed form of declaratory judgment and permanent injunction until after the Court addressed Defendants' then forthcoming motion for reconsideration.

On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed their motion for reconsideration, along with a motion to enlarge the time by which they could file another motion for summary judgment and a motion for summary judgment. On June 25, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion for reconsideration. In the motion, Defendants argued, in part, that Mangeac lacked standing to bring her claims. After oral argument, the record was still somewhat unclear on whether Mangeac had standing to assert her claims. Therefore, the Court determined that the best way forward was to conduct an evidentiary hearing to make sure the record was fully developed before making a standing determination and deciding the motion for reconsideration. The Court conducted the evidentiary hearing on August 30, 2010 and September 3, 2010, and the parties subsequently filed post-hearing briefs.

ANALYSIS

1. Motion for Reconsideration Legal Standard

As explained in the Court's earlier Order, a motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires an analysis of two important principles: (1) Error must be corrected; and (2) Judicial efficiency demands forward progress. The former principal has led courts to hold that a denial of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time before final judgment. Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979). While even an interlocutory decision becomes the "law of the case," it is not necessarily carved in stone. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the "law of the case" doctrine "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power." Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912). "The only sensible thing for a trial court to do is to set itself right as soon as possible when convinced that the law of the case is erroneous. There is no need to await reversal." In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, 521 F.Supp. 568, 572 (N.D.Cal. 1981) (Schwartzer, J.).

The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A court's opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988). "Courts have distilled various grounds for reconsideration of prior rulings into three major grounds for justifying reconsideration:

(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record; and (3) need to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice." Louen v Twedt, 2007 WL 915226 (E.D.Cal. March 26, 2007). If the motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these three categories, it must be denied.

2. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration

Defendants contend that the Court should reconsider its earlier decision in order to correct the factual record and prevent manifest injustice. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its finding that the Registry violated Mangeac's procedural due process rights and that Defendants be enjoined from automatically ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.