Sonoma Apt. Assocs. v. United States

Sonoma Apt. Assocs. v. United States

Opinion

ORDER

On December 28, 2017, defendant in the above-captioned case filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's December 1, 2017 judgment, arguing that the December 22, 2017 enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017), constitutes a change of law that necessitates a recalculation of the tax neutralization payment awarded to plaintiff. In accordance with the court's January 8, 2018 order, plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion on February 1, 2018. It argues that defendant has not shown that there was an intervening change in the controlling law and that denial of defendant's motion is warranted for public policy reasons and the interests of justice.

A motion for reconsideration is a request for extraordinary relief and is not to be used by a dissatisfied party to relitigate the case. Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Four Rivers Invs., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 662, 664 (2007); Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298, 300 (1999), aff'd per curiam, 250 F.3d 762 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished table decision). Thus, such a motion "does not provide [*2]  an occasion for a party 'to raise arguments that it could have raised previously, but did not'" or to "'reassert arguments that the Court already has considered.'" Four Rivers Invs., Inc., 78 Fed. Cl. at 664 (quoting Browning Ferris Indus., Inc. & Subsidiaries v. United States, No. 05-738T, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 141, 2007 WL 1412087, at *1 (Fed. Cl. May 10, 2007)). Rather, a court "'may grant a motion for reconsideration when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or a need to correct clear factual or legal error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Biery v. United States, 818 F.3d 704, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Young v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 671, 674 (2010)). "The decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the discretion of the [trial] court." Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The court has reviewed the parties' submissions, and finds that plaintiff's arguments are more compelling. As an initial matter, in concluding that plaintiff was entitled to a tax neutralization payment, the court held that it was reasonable for plaintiff to use 2015 tax rates to project plaintiff's partners' future tax liabilities:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.