United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion for Additional
Findings and for Amendments of Findings Pursuant to Rule
52(b) or Alternatively Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration.
The Motion is fully briefed and the Court finds these matters
appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the
reasons explained below, the Court will DENY the motion.
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo (“Plaintiff”) was employed by
Defendant Idahoan Foods, LLC (“Defendant” or
“Idahoan Foods” or “the Company”) as
a Senior Food Scientist from December 2012 until his
termination on July 11, 2014. See Compl.
¶¶ 31, 49-51, Dkt. 1-1. On September 2, 2014, he
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Idaho Human Rights
Commission (IHRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), alleging that his termination was based on
race and national origin discrimination. Id. ¶
EEOC issued Plaintiff a “Notice of Right to Sue”
in May 2015, and Plaintiff filed suit asserting claims for
employment discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of
contract, and infliction of emotional distress arising from
his termination. Additionally, Plaintiff contended that
Defendant's subsequent refusal to rehire him for other
positions within the Company was unlawful retaliation in
response to his complaints of race discrimination filed with
the IHRC and EEOC. Id. ¶¶ 145-47.
2, 2016, Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts.
See Def.'s Br. at 1, Dkt. 27. This Court granted
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and entered
Judgment in favor of the Defendant on March 20, 2017. See
Mem. Decision and Order at 1, Dkt. 33;
Judgment, Dkt 34. Plaintiff then moved for this
Court to reconsider the judgment. See Pl.'s Br.
at 1, Dkt. 38; see also Pl.'s Reply at 6, Dkt.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is not intended to provide
litigants with a “second bite at the apple.”
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001).
Instead, reconsideration of a final judgment under Rule 59(e)
is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in
the interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
945 (9th Cir. 2003). A losing party cannot use a post
judgment motion to reconsider as a means of litigating old
matters or presenting arguments that could have been raised
before the entry of judgment. School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).
result, there are four limited grounds upon which a motion to
alter or amend judgment may be granted: (1) the motion is
necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) the
moving party presents newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent
manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in
the law. Turner v. Burlington North. Santa Fe R.R.
Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that the Court may
reconsider a final judgment or order based on: “(1)
mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or
discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which
would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263. This Rule must be used sparingly as an
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a
party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment. See Lal v. California, 610 F.3d
518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). The moving party bears the burden
of providing the existence of fraud, misconduct, or any other
ground for relief. Atchison, T & S.F. Ry. Co. v.
Barrett, 246 F.2d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 1957).
reviewing the Order granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30) and the parties' briefing on
the issue, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not carried his
burden under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), and thus will deny his
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's only argument in
support of reconsideration is that the Court failed to
properly consider evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in
support of his Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Exhibit 24, which
purports to be a printout of his email spam box, is
admissible evidence that creates a genuine issue of fact
sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See Pl.'s
Br. at 4, Dkt. 38.
ruling in favor of Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Court properly declined to consider Exhibit 24
after determining that it was inadmissible. See Mem.
Decision and Order at 23, Dkt. 33 (citing Beyene v.
Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“It is well settled that only admissible
evidence may be considered by the trial court in ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.”). The Court held that the
document lacked any direct or circumstantial indices that it
was what it purported to be: evidence of confirmation emails
received after applying for open employment positions with
Defendant's company. Mem. Decision and Order at
23, Dkt. 33. Thus, because the Plaintiff failed ...