Motion for Reconsideration
John Newton plans to appeal the court’s order. The first step in that process is to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Here are the opening remarks:
The basis for this motion is that this Court erred in its decision when it found the contract to be unenforceable due to the parties’ failure to “agree upon a delivery date for ASTCA’s subscriber listings.” It is Plaintiff’s position that despite the ambiguity of the language of the contract, the Parties understood their obligations under the contract and the urgent nature of the information that was to be provided. Furthermore, that any ambiguity in the contract should be construed against ASTCA as the drafting party and it was therefore its choice of language that created the ambiguity in the first place.
In support of this position, Plaintiff offers the following memorandum of points and authorities, showing the Court why it should reconsider its position. You can view the entire Motion for Reconsideration here.
The Court’s Erroneous Order
We opted to accept the version of facts as given by ASTCA’s in-house counsel Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde’s testimony, which effectively showed the MOU to embody a very deliberate refutation or rejection of Newton’s detailed proposal of ASTCA’s obligations as outlined in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 34.
The above statement by the Court is proof that they favor ASTCA, making their entire opinion biased against Newton. You can read the entire Order Denying Newton’s Motion for Reconsideration here.
Notes on Kruse’s Order Denying Motion for New Trial
The court has delineated three distinct grounds upon which a Motion for Reconsideration may be adjudicated. Among these, only the second criterion holds relevance: “a clear error in a decision that is manifestly unjust.”
First Court Error: In his motion, Newton asserts that “The Parties’ own conduct or their acquiescent actions were the actual implementation of the delivery date and therefore the contract.” This assertion was substantiated conclusively during the trial. The court erred in its declaration that “We find no merit to the motion.”
Second Court Error: Newton’s Motion contends that “The final product was the result of drafting by ASTCA’s legal counsel, so any ambiguity in the contract should be construed against ASTCA.” ASTCA should not be permitted to utilize the ambiguity inherent in its own contractual language to evade its obligations. A pertinent citation in support of this argument was provided in the Motion, citing “Heston v. Farmers Insurance Group, 160 Cal App. 3d 402, 415 (Cal Court of Appeal, 2nd Dist., 3rd Div. (1984),” which stipulates that any uncertainty should be construed against the drafter, i.e., the party responsible for the ambiguity. The court erred in its assertion that “We find no merit to the motion.”
Third Court Error: Newton’s Motion maintains that “ASTCA did not choose to terminate the agreement with Newton even though it possessed the capacity to do so.” The court makes an objectively perplexing statement in response: “The logic behind this contention is puzzling. It asserts that ASTCA’s failure to assert its right to terminate the MOU necessarily implicates a breach of contract on Newton’s part. No authority is cited to sustain the logical extension of Newton’s argument that his own malfeasance would be to his gain where ASTCA fails to exercise its right to terminate the MOU.” It is worth noting that malfeasance denotes an illegal act causing harm, particularly by a public official or an individual in a position of public trust. There is no indication that Newton caused any harm by suggesting that ASTCA had the option to terminate the MOU.