United States of America v. Gray et al, No. 1:2021cv03126 - Document 100 (E.D. Wash. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 81 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (TNC, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. Gray et al Doc. 100 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Feb 27, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO: 1:21-CV-3126-TOR Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RICK T. GRAY, and GRAY FARMS & CATTLE CO. LLC, 11 Defendants. BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Rick T. Gray’s Motion for 12 13 Reconsideration. ECF No. 81. This matter was submitted without oral argument. 14 The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, the briefing, and is fully 15 informed. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion for Reconsideration is 16 denied. 17 I. 18 Standard of Review A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 20 Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is 2 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 3 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 4 controlling law.” Id. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 5 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion 6 for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 7 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 8 Cir. 2003). 9 A district court does not abuse its discretion when it disregards legal 10 arguments made for the first time on a motion to alter or amend a judgment. 11 United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 12 2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 13 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or 14 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 15 earlier in the litigation.”). Evidence available to a party before it files its 16 opposition is not “newly discovered evidence” warranting reconsideration of 17 summary judgment. See Frederick S. Wyle Prof’l Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 18 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1985). 19 On the other hand, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs 20 reconsideration of a non-final order. An order that resolves fewer than all the ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2 1 claims among the parties—that is, a non-final order—“may be revised at any time 2 before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights 3 and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. 4 Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005). Where reconsideration of a non- 5 final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke 6 it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 As a rule, a court should be loath to revisit its own decisions in the absence 8 of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was “clearly 9 erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Christianson v. Colt Indus. 10 Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is embodied in the law 11 of the case doctrine, under which “a court is generally precluded from 12 reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher 13 court in the identical case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th 14 Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)). While 15 the district court possesses inherent power to reconsider and amend previous 16 interlocutory orders, Martin, supra, like other motions to reconsider, this is an 17 extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 18 conservation of judicial resources. Indeed, courts frequently apply the same 19 standard as that applicable to Rule 59(e) motions. See eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat’l 20 Semiconductor Corp., 881 F.Supp.2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (collecting cases). ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3 1 2 3 4 II. Defendant’s Argument Defendant contends that he did not commingle his personal production of wheat during the years 2006 through 2012. Without going through all the facts, the Court found in granting the partial 5 motion for summary judgment, the relevant facts to this motion are as follows. 6 Prior to the 2015 harvest, Rick T. Gray did not request a pre-harvest bin 7 measurement on behalf of either Gray Land or Gray Farms. Previously, Rick T. 8 Gray became fully aware that non-disclosed farm-stored production would be 9 counted as PTC (production to count) which would lower his insurance claim on 10 any claimed losses. This happened in the early 2010s. See ECF No. 59 at ¶¶ 33- 11 34. He was repeatedly reminded that he must ask for an inventory prior to harvest 12 to account for any stored crop. 13 Rick T. Gray submitted claims of loss for both Gray Farms and Gray Land 14 on the 2015 crop insurance policies. On September 30, 2015 Rick T. Gray signed 15 and attested to the total amount of wheat produced by Gray Land and Gray Farms. 16 Rick T. Gray disclosed and certified that all of Gray Farms’ and Gray Land’s 17 wheat for 2015 was sold to Horse Heaven Grain. 18 Rick T. Gray never disclosed any grain in storage at either farm and the 19 inspectors never observed any grain in storage. Rick T. Gray never asked for 20 preharvest bin inspection and measurement. Beginning in July 2015 and ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4 1 continuing through November 2015, Rick T. Gray sold 35,378 bushels of wheat in 2 twenty-three transactions to three other granaries – AgriNorthwest in Plymouth, 3 Washington, Mid-Columbia Producers in Rufus, Oregon, and Tri-Cities Grain, in 4 Pasco, Washington. The seller of that wheat was in the name of Rick Gray and 5 Gray Farms & Cattle Co. LLC. See ECF No. 59, Ex. 18, 19, and 20. Rick was 6 listed as the driver of several of those truck load sales. In total, $214,191.81 was 7 obtained from these sales. 8 9 Rick T. Gray claims that he never comingled his personal wheat with the LLCs’ wheat, but produces no evidence whatsoever of that assertion. In fact, at his 10 deposition he claims the wheat was stored in bins on land farmed by Gray Farms 11 and or Gray Land (farmed stored production). 12 Defendants do not dispute that wheat sold from July to November 2015 was 13 sold in the name of Gray Farms & Cattle Co. LLC. However, at his deposition he 14 explained that he stored the grain in bins on land farmed by Gray Farms and or 15 Gray Land. Yet, the loss adjuster observed that all of the grain bins were empty 16 when inspected. He does not explain why he sold it in the name of Gray Farms & 17 Cattle Co. LLC nor why he did not just sell it to Horse Heaven Grain rather than 18 truck it to three other distant granaries. He does not claim that he asked for a 19 preharvest inspection of the grain bins so his insurance proceeds would not be 20 diminished by the amount he sold from storage. Defendant provided no ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 5 1 documentation or other information about the production or storage of that wheat 2 and why it would be kept for as many as 9-years before selling it. Nor does 3 Defendant contest that the wheat was sold in the name of Gray Farms & Cattle Co. 4 LLC. It is undisputed that Rick T. Gray and Gray Farms acted with actual 5 knowledge of the falsity (misrepresentations and omissions) because Rick T. Gray 6 was well aware that any stored grain had to be disclosed and inspected before 7 harvest. Rick T. Gray sold 35,378 bushels of wheat to three other distant granaries 8 in twenty-three transactions in the name of “Rick Gray and Gray Farms & Cattle 9 Co. LLC” without any disclosure. Rick T. Gray’s knowledge based on his prior 10 experience shows that he knew of his obligation to disclose stored grain and sales. 11 Based on the sworn evidence and undisputed records before the Court, there 12 are no genuine disputes of material fact. 13 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 Defendant Rick T. Gray’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 81, is 15 DENIED. 16 17 18 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to the parties including Rick T. Gray, P.O. Box 1525, Prosser, WA 99350. DATED February 27, 2024. 19 20 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
