Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-01580-JAM-AC
05-18-2020
PABLO ROBLES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES, in his official capacity, DEPUTY HARDY (Badge No. 1434), DEPUTY DANIEL (Badge No. 645), DEPUTY MOVAHAN (Badge No. 452), DEPUTY PAM (Badge No. 31), SGT. M. LOPEZ (Badge No. 179), DEPUTY MATOON (Badge No. 1095), OFFICER S. ROBY (Badge No. 529), and Does 1-40, inclusive , Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pablo Robles ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against the County of Sacramento ("the County" or "Defendant"), alleging Defendant unlawfully imprisoned him without charges after a DUI arrest on April 3, 2016. First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 18. Defendant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 32. Plaintiff opposed the motion. ECF No. 36. The Court held oral argument on Defendant's motion on February 11, 2020. The Court ruled from the bench and denied Defendant's motion. ECF No. 44; see also Transcript of Hearing ("Transcript"), ECF No. 49.
Defendant now moves the Court to reconsider its ruling denying summary judgment. Mot., ECF No. 56. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Opp'n., ECF No. 57. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2020. --------
I. OPINION
A. Legal Standard
A district court will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless (1) it is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error; or (3) there was an intervening change in the controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Clear error exists "when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Adamson Apparel Inc., 785 F.3d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show "new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j). ///
B. Judicial Notice
Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of: (1) a news article alleging Defendant held another "DUI suspect for 27 days without charges" and (2) a copy of the complaint that person filed against Defendant. Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 58.
A district court may take judicial notice of a fact that is "not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). It is well-established that "a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Both the article and the complaint are matters of public record—the Court can therefore take judicial notice of these documents.
However, as Defendant points out, a Court cannot take judicial notice of the truth asserted in those documents. Reply, ECF No. 60, at 2 (citing Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, the Court will only take judicial notice of the existence of these documents, but not of the truth of any facts or allegations asserted in them.
C. Analysis
Defendant argues the Court committed clear error: (1) by finding a triable issue of fact despite holding "this case does not flow from any policy of inaction based on Proposition 47," and (2) by "supplanting its own interpretation" of the Sacramento County Superior Court order at issue. Mot. at 4-5. Defendant does not identify any new legal or factual issues that were not raised in the earlier briefings. Instead, Defendant simply contends the Court got it wrong.
But Defendant fails to prove the Court committed clear error when denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment. First, for the same reasons articulated at the hearing, the Court finds there is a triable issue of fact as to the Monell claim despite this case not flowing from any policy or inaction based on Proposition 47. See Transcript at 17. Here, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the Defendant's practice of relying on JIMS was unreasonable, "and that's why summary judgment cannot be granted." Transcript at 18:16-20. It is up to a jury to decide whether Defendant's use of the system was reasonable. Id.; see also Greene v. Allstate Ins. Co., 242 F.3d 381, *1 (9th Cir. 2000)(noting "questions of reasonableness are usually questions of fact for the jury.").
Second, the Court did not "supplant its own interpretation" of the Sacramento County Superior Court Order. If Defendant had carefully read the transcript at the page it cited in support of this contention, it would find that the Court prefaced that statement with the following: "[t]he Plaintiff argues that because the order said . . . ." Transcript at 20:15-17. Accordingly, the Court attributed such interpretation to the facts produced by Plaintiff. The Court did not concoct this interpretation on its own as Defendant erroneously suggests. For this reason alone, Defendant's second argument fails.
Defendant has failed to prove the Court committed clear error when it denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment. As it also did not contend any newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law warranted reconsideration, this motion is DENIED.
II. ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2020
/s/ _________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE