From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Dental Care Assocs. of Spokane Valley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Apr 29, 2016
NO: 2:15-CV-23-RMP (E.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2016)

Opinion

NO: 2:15-CV-23-RMP

04-29-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENTAL CARE ASSOCIATES OF SPOKANE VALLEY, PS; DR. JAMES G. HOOD, DDS; and KAREN J. HOOD, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF'S ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants' "Motion to Object to Plaintiff's Order for Permanent Injunction," ECF No. 126, which the Court construes as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment entered previously, ECF No. 107. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record, and is fully informed.

ANALYSIS

Although Defendants do not cite which law or rule they rely upon for this Motion, the Court construes it as one brought pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). "While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers 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) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). "Indeed, 'a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.'" Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000))

Similarly, Rule 60(b) permits "reconsideration only upon a showing of (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." Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985)).

Defendants' Motion alleges that the Department of Justice was attempting to legislate by seeking an injunction from this Court. See ECF No. 126. Defendants' arguments fail to meet the standard for a motion for reconsideration or to amend a previous order and fail to provide any good cause to reconsider this Court's prior Order imposing a permanent injunction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' "Motion to Object to Plaintiff's Order for Permanent Injunction," ECF No. 126, is DENIED.

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.

DATED this 29th day of April 2016.

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson

ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Dental Care Assocs. of Spokane Valley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Apr 29, 2016
NO: 2:15-CV-23-RMP (E.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Dental Care Assocs. of Spokane Valley

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENTAL CARE ASSOCIATES OF SPOKANE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Date published: Apr 29, 2016

Citations

NO: 2:15-CV-23-RMP (E.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2016)