DOLORES PRESS, INC., a California corporation; MELISSA SCOTT v. Michael Evans;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOLORES PRESS, INC., a California
corporation; MELISSA SCOTT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL EVANS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55480
D.C. Nos.
2:15-cv-02562-PA-PLA
2:15-cv-02857-PA-PLA
2:16-cv-01275-PA-PLA
5:16-cv-00333-PA-PLA
5:18-cv-02219-PA-PLA
2:18-cv-09077-PA-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 12, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District
Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Pursuant to our suggestion in a prior disposition,1 the district court sought to
corral the multiple actions that had arisen out of efforts by some of Dr. Scott’s
followers to republish Dr. Scott’s sermons after his death. The district court
consolidated a number of cases and directed the filing of amended complaints.
Plaintiffs Dolores Press, Inc. and Melissa Scott filed some amended complaints but
did not file an amended complaint against two defendants, Michael Evans and Tina
Pereida. The district court then dismissed the actions as to Evans and Pereida.
Plaintiffs eventually objected, but the district court denied their motion for
clarification or reconsideration. Challenging only the dismissal of Evans and
Pereida, Plaintiffs timely appeal from the entry of a final amended judgment. We
have jurisdiction and affirm.
Our review of the record shows that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to vacate its order dismissing Evans and Pereida.
The denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Ave. Trust, 979 F.3d 1209, 1218
(9th Cir. 2020). We stated that a “Rule 59(e) motion ‘may not be used to raise
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier.’” Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
1 Doc’s Dream, LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc., 766 F. App’x 467, 473-74 (9th
Cir. 2019); see also Doc’s Dream LLC v. Dolores Press, Inc., 959 F.3d 357 (9th
Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Here, the district court dismissed Evans and Pereida in January 2020.
Plaintiffs did not immediately challenge that order. Plaintiffs admitted in the
February 27, 2020 joint report on counsel’s early meeting that Evans and Pereida
had been dismissed by the court. The parties proceeded to prepare for trial which
was scheduled for October 2020. In September 2020, defendant Bobbi Jones,
whom Plaintiffs alleged was the principal architect in the scheme to infringe the
copyrighted works of Dr. Scott, withdrew her answer and her default was entered
on October 1, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the district court issued a minute
order noting that “all the defendants in this case have now either been dismissed or
had their default entered against them.”
Only at that point, on January 11, 2021, did Plaintiffs file their motion for
reconsideration. They argued that the district court’s August 13, 2019 order
consolidating six cases and requiring that Plaintiffs file amended complaints did
not apply to the complaints against Evans and Pereida, because they had filed
answers. However, even if true, this does not excuse Plaintiffs’ failure to
challenge the district court’s January 2020 dismissal of Evans and Pereida or
explain their failure to seek relief until after other defendants had had their defaults
entered. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the January 2021
motion to reconsider.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Even if the denial of the motion were considered a sanction, as Plaintiffs
argue, the five factors set forth in Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 1999), would not compel a grant of relief. The public’s interest in
expeditious resolution favors resolving these cases that have dragged on since
2014-2015, the district court’s need to manage its docket favors the enforcement of
its orders, and Evans and Pereida would be prejudiced if they were reinserted into
the litigation. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the public policy favoring
dispositions on the merits applies where, as here, the claims between the principals
have been settled, and there do not appear to have been any less drastic sanctions
practically available.
The district court’s dismissal of Evans and Pereida is AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --