Austin v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied George Jarvis Austin’s motions for a new trial, to alter or correct the judgment and dispositive order, and for assignment to a new judge. The court construed the requested judgment relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1), concluding that Austin merely repeated arguments previously rejected on summary judgment and had not shown grounds for relief.

Holdings

1. Austin was not entitled to a new trial because no trial had occurred in the action.
2. The Rule 59(e) motion was denied because Austin merely repeated arguments previously presented and rejected on summary judgment; Rule 59(e) may not be used to relitigate old matters.
3. The Rule 60(b)(1) motion was denied because Austin sought to reargue issues already decided and did not establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or exceptional circumstances warranting relief.
4. The requests to have matters heard by the Executive Committee or referred to another judge were denied because motions must be directed to the judge assigned to the action absent authorization otherwise, and no basis existed to revisit the prior denial of recusal or disqualification.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Austin was entitled to a new trial when no trial had occurred.
2. Whether Austin demonstrated grounds under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment based on alleged clear error concerning res judicata and summary judgment.
3. Whether Austin demonstrated mistake or exceptional circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
4. Whether the court should permit Austin to present matters to the Executive Committee or refer the matter to another judge.

Disposition

other