United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs Motion for Leave
to Amend and Reconsideration (doc. 24). For the reasons
stated below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
parties are familiar with the background facts of this case,
which are discussed in the Court's October 9, 2018
Opinion and Order (the "October Opinion") granting
the Motion to Dismiss that was filed by Kristopher G. Kyes
and Oregon Department of Transportation/Department of Motor
Vehicles ("Oregon DOT/DMV") (collectively,
"State Defendants"). The Court will not retread
October Opinion, the Court concluded that the Oregon DOT/DMV
were entitled to sovereign immunity because it had not been
waived in federal court and that the claims against Kyes were
either proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment or lacked a
constitutional basis under § 1983. Plaintiff filed his
Motion for Leave to Amend and Reconsideration (the
"Motion") on October 23, 2018. State Defendants
filed their Response in Opposition on November 6, 2018.
argues that the Motion should be granted because (i)
"defendants DMV and Kyes . ., attempted to perpetrate a
fraud on the Oregon Court of Appeals [because they alleged
that plaintiff] had not followed agency rules to restore his
driver's license" and (ii) plaintiff wants to add a
new discrimination claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Motion for Reconsideration
asks for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for reconsideration
upon a showing of fraud.
argues that State Defendants attempted to defraud the Oregon
Court of Appeals by making a false claim in their brief on
October 9, 2018-the day this Court's October Opinion was
issued. Plaintiff further states that he "does not
oppose the stay of proceedings [in this Court] until the
decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals [is
filed]"-which implies that there is, or was when he
filed this motion, an ongoing state law proceeding. To the
extent there was a fraudulent statement in the State
Defendants' state court brief, that is best addressed to
the state court itself. Thus, reconsideration based on Rule
60(b)(3) is improper.
Ninth Circuit precedent indicates that reconsideration is
proper when a 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. IJ v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (internal citation omitted). 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) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
is no allegation of error or injustice under (2), or that
there has been a change in the law under (3). The only issue,
then, is whether there is new evidence to consider under (1).
A defendant's fraudulent briefing in a state court
proceeding is not new evidence that warrants dismissal in
federal court-particularly because the content of the October
Opinion was unrelated to the alleged fraud. Accordingly,
plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.
Motion for Leave to Amend
also requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add