Opinion
CV F 96-5948 AWI SMS, [Document #244]
July 30, 2001
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO AMEND COURT ORDERS OF JUDICIAL SALE
Judgment in this action was entered May 6, 1998, and was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. On May 5, 1998, the court filed an Order of Judicial Sale, which was amended by on April 27, 2000, respecting the sale of coins. On October 24, 2000, the court granted the United States' request to amend the Order of Judicial Sale, respecting the sale of real property, and the same day the court filed an Amended Order of Judicial Sale.
On June 27, 2001, Dr. Simmons filed a motion for reconsideration of the motions to amend the Order of Judicial Sale.
On July 13, 2001, the United States filed an opposition.
On July 19, 2001, Dr. Simmons filed a response to the United States' opposition.
Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987);Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may reconsider a final judgment because of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, I 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 Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), the court can reconsider ajudgment (1) if the court is presented with newly-discovered evidence; (2) where the court "committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust;" or (3) where there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion."
In his motion for reconsideration, Dr. Simmons contends that this court abused its discretion by allowing an Administrative Agency, instead of the United States Marshall, to oversee over the judicial sale. Dr. Simmons also contends that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to change the original Order of Judicial Sale, which had directed the United States Marshal to conduct the sale. These arguments have already been considered and rejected by the court. The court has previously determined that the amendments to the Order of Judicial sale fell within the court's broad discretion to set terms and conditions of judicial sales. See 28 U.S.C. § 2001 (a); United States v. Branch Coal Corp., 390 F.2d 7, 10 (3d Cir. 1968); United States v. Heasley, 283 F.2d 422, 426 (8th Cir. 1960); Revere Copper Brass, Inc. v. Adriance Machine Works, 68 F.2d 708, 709 (2d Cir. 1934). The motion for reconsideration provides no new evidence, change in the controlling law, or other evidence of mistake, fraud, or excusable neglect. The motion provides Dr. Simmons's disagreement with the court's orders amending the Order of Judicial Sale. Dr. Simmons's disagreement has been repeatedly recognized by this court. However, Dr. Simmons's disagreement does not provide a basis for reconsideration of the amendments to the Order of Judicial Sale. The parties' discussions over the proper role of the United States Marshal in service of process are noted. However, it is the court's discretion to set the terms of a judicial sale, not service of process, that is at issue. No changes in the law controlling the court's discretion to create the terms of a judicial sale have been provided.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Dr. Simmons's June 27, 2001 motion for reconsideration is DENIED.