United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, CHIEF JUDGE.
Court has before it Mitchell's Motion to Reconsider
Memorandum Decision and Order of March 7, 2017 Dismissing the
Case (Dkt. 30).
applied for a job at Winco in April 2015 using Winco's
online application. The online application provided her with
an FCRA disclosure informing her that WinCo would conduct a
background check in connection with her application for
alleges that she was presented another form entitled
“Authorization for Background Check” at the same
time she reviewed the disclosure. She was subsequently hired
by Winco, but she alleges, on behalf of herself and a class,
that the disclosure violated the FCRA because Winco failed to
provide a “stand-alone” disclosure regarding the
filed a motion to dismiss the claims based upon lack of
standing. The Court granted that motion after interpreting
and applying the Supreme Court's recent decision on FCRA
standing, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540
(2016). Mitchell now asks the Court to reconsider its
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 principle 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.
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).
of a court's prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) is appropriate “if (1) the district
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the
district court committed clear error or made an initial
decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an
intervening change in controlling law.” S.E.C. v.
Platforms Wireless Int'l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100
(9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the motion to
reconsider does not fall within one of these three
categories, it must be denied. Here, Plaintiff suggests the
Court committed clear error.
Court is often presented with motions to reconsider based
upon an argument that the Court committed clear error. Most
of those motions simply restate arguments the Court has
already addressed, and ask the Court to rethink its decision.
This is one of those motions. The Court has already addressed
Plaintiff's arguments in its earlier decision and nothing
in the motion to reconsider causes the Court to change its
mind. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
argues that Syed v. M-I, LLC,846 F.3d 492 (9th Cir.
2017) is an intervening change in controlling law.
Syed is similar to this case in that it addresses
the FCsRA's requirement that an FCRA disclosure regarding
a background check be a stand- alone disclosure. The majority
of the opinion focuses on whether defendant M-I violated the
FCRA by including a liability waiver on the same document as
its FCRA disclosure. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted
that “[n]either the Supreme Court nor any circuit court
of appeals has addressed whether a prospective employer may
satisfy 15 U.S.C. ...