Tanoue

10 Citing cases

  1. Krakauer v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs.

    Civ. No. 09-00518 ACK-BMK (D. Haw. Feb. 26, 2013)

    Under FRCP 60(b)(2), "the moving party must show that the evidence (i) is newly discovered; (ii) could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (iii) is of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome." U.S. v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Haw. 1995)(citing Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987). FRCP 60(b)(3) allows the Court to provide relief if the opposing party committed fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

  2. Doe v. The City of Baton Rouge

    Civ. 6:21-cv-00314-AA (D. Or. Jun. 22, 2022)

    With respect to Rule 60(b)(2), the moving party must show “that the evidence (i) is newly discovered; (ii) could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (iii) is of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome.” United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Haw. 1995).

  3. King Cnty. v. Viracon, Inc.

    Civil Action 2:19-cv-508-BJR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2022)

    Rule 60(b)(2) also requires that the moving party establish that it was diligent in discovering the new evidence. Coastal Transfer, 833 F.2d at 211; United States v. Tanous, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Hawai'i 1995) (moving party must show that the evidence “could not have been discovered through due diligence”).

  4. Iseke v. City of Honolulu

    CV 15-00193 LEK-RLP (D. Haw. Dec. 29, 2017)

    In order to justify reconsideration on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, the movant must show that the evidence "(i) is newly discovered; (ii) could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (iii) is of such a material and controlling nature as will probably change the outcome." United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Hawai`i 1995) (citing Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987)), aff'd 94 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir. 1996). II. Recusal

  5. In re Lagmay

    CIV. NO. 15-00166 DKW/RLP (D. Haw. Oct. 13, 2015)   Cited 17 times

    Pac. & Arctic Ry. and Navigation Co. v. United Transp. Union, 952 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 98 (D. Haw. 1995). Disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision.

  6. Tia v. Suzuki

    CIV. NO. 13-00157 LEK/KSC (D. Haw. May. 10, 2013)

    Rule 60(b)(3) allows the court to provide relief on the basis of fraud if the fraud was not discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceeding, and was materially related to the submitted issue. Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 98 (D. Haw. 1995) (citing Pac. & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co. v. United Transp. Union, 952 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1988)).

  7. Krakauer v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs.

    Civ. No. 09-00518 ACK-BMK (D. Haw. Mar. 19, 2013)

    For reconsideration on the basis of fraud, the fraud must not have been discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceeding, and the fraud must be materially related to the submitted issue. Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 98 (D. Haw. 1995) (citing Pacific & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co. v. United Transp. Union, 952 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1988)).

  8. Scott v. Schriro

    No. CV-97-1554-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Nov. 13, 2006)

    ( See Dkt. 173, Ex. 2, Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.) Relevant case law supports only contrary propositions; i.e., that a "district court order declining to entertain or grant a Rule 60(b) Motion is a procedural ruling and not a determination on the merits," Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2000), and that when asked if they are willing to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion district courts can and do consider the merits of the underlying motion, see, e.g., Miller v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 99 (D. Hawaii 1995). It is self-evident that elimination of the merits of the underlying motion as criteria upon which the Court can rely in determining whether it wishes to entertain — or grant — such a motion eliminates any rational basis for the court's decision.

  9. United States v. Westlands Water Dist.

    CV-F-89-172 OWW (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2001)   Cited 945 times
    Holding that "` party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden'"

    In the Ninth Circuit, the party seeking reconsideration based on newly-discovered evidence must show the evidence: (1) is truly newly-discovered; (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (3) is of such a material and controlling nature that it demands a probable change in the outcome. See United States v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96, 97 (D. Haw. 1996) (citing Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also N. Ind. Gun Outdoor Shows, Inc., 111 F. Supp.2d at 1026 (requiring five similar factors: "(1) the evidence was discovered following trial; (2) due diligence on the part of the movant to discover the new evidence is shown or may be inferred; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a new result.") (citing In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Pac. R.R. Co., 78 F.3d 285, 293-94 (7th Cir. 1996)). IV. DISCUSSION

  10. In re Classicstar, LLC v. Baker

    CASE NO. 07-51786 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jun. 20, 2011)

    The Court remains mindful that both the Reserve Account and Purchase Agreement could have been discovered if Baker had exercised due diligence in subpoenaing the documents from Key Bank. See U.S. v. Tanoue, 165 F.R.D. 96 (D. Hawai'I 1995) (denying a motion made under Rule 60(b)(3) under the assumption that even if the government committed a fraud, it could have been discovered by respondent's due diligence before or during the proceeding). Moreover, as Trustee has pointed out, neither document on its face is proof that Baker's loan was purchased and assigned.