Opinion
Case No.: 13-CV-1295 JLS (BLM)
04-04-2016
JOHN T. SHAW; KENNETH COKE; and RAYMOND RYDMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND (2) MODIFYING THE COURT'S OCTOBER 26, 2015 ORDER (ECF No. 149)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order [(1)] Granting Defendant Experian's Motion to Stay; (2) Sua Sponte Staying Action; and (3) Denying Without Prejudice All Remaining Pending Motions. (ECF No. 149.) Also before the Court are Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Opposition to (ECF No. 152) and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of (ECF No. 153) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court vacated the hearing and took the matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (ECF No. 154.) Having considered the parties' arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 149) and MODIFIES its October 26, 2015 Order (ECF No. 148) as described below.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging various class action claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (SAC 17-23, ECF No. 56.) Generally, the SAC asserts that "the procedures developed and systematically employed by Experian to report credit information about accounts in which consumers engaged in short sales are inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading, and violate the requirements of the FCRA." (Id. at ¶ 4.)
For ease of reference, page citations to docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF page number.
On August 24, 2015, Defendant Experian filed a motion to stay this Court's hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). (ECF No. 129.) The Court granted Defendant Experian's motion in an October 26, 2015 Order (the Stay Order), sua sponte staying all proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo. (ECF No. 148.) On November 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 149.)
LEGAL STANDARD
In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration "[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part." Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or different facts and circumstances which previously did not exist. Id.
Generally, reconsideration of a prior order is "appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the "sound discretion" of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). A party may not raise new arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them earlier. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its Stay Order on two grounds:
(1) that plaintiffs may have inadvertently misle[]d the Court into believing that some of its class members have suffered no actual injury; and (2) that the Court appears to have adopted Experian's erroneous argument that Fannie Mae had a "glitch" in its system causing it to "misread" Experian's reports, which is incorrect, and that Fannie Mae's voluntary adoption of a work-around for certain purposes prevents "ongoing and future harm."(Mot. for Recons. 2, ECF No. 149 (citing ECF No. 148 at 7).) Plaintiffs' claim that their Motion for Reconsideration "is intended and appropriate solely to foreclose the possibility of undue prejudice and manifest injustice that could result from some of the language used in the Court's [Stay Order]." (Reply 2, ECF No. 153.)
Defendant Experian correctly notes that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration "violates Local Rule 7.1, which requires the moving party to provide the Court with an affidavit setting forth, among other things, 'what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown' in the parties' briefing." (Opp'n 3, ECF No. 152 (quoting Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(2)).) The Court is therefore entitled to summarily deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. See, e.g., In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation, No. 09-CV-2094-AJB WVG, 2011 WL 3859442, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2011) (excusing movant for reconsideration's "failure to comply with the Local Rules" and putting on notice all parties that "a similar violation in the future may result in the summary denial of their motion if appropriate"). / / /
Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and amends the Stay Order as follows, with deletions strickenthrough and insertions in bold:
• 3:6-9: Their memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for class certification acknowledges that some members of the proposed classes did not suffer actualharmdamages, and that those who did suffer actualharmdamages may opt out of the class, if one is certified.
• 7:14-16:Even if Plaintiffs were still seeking injunctive relief, because Fannie Mae has fixed the glitch that misread Defendant Experian's reports (ECF No. 115-2 at 14), there is no "ongoing and future harm" weighing against granting a stay. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112.
The Stay Order remains otherwise unchanged.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 149) and modifies its October 26, 2015 Order (ECF No. 148) as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2016
/s/_________
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge