Kratz Aerial Ag Service, Inc. v. Slykerman ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRATZ AERIAL AG SERVICE, INC., a No. 1:15-cv-01070-MCE-JLT North Dakota Corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 JOHN A. SLYKERMAN, individually 15 and dba Agra Fly; et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 3, 2019, this action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply 19 with the applicable rules and orders of this Court and because both sides had failed to 20 prosecute their claims. ECF No. 82. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion 21 for Reconsideration. ECF No. 86.1 22 A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary 23 circumstances show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous. Christianson v. Colt 24 Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is embodied in the law 25 of the case doctrine, under which “a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an 26 issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical 27 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 1 case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas v. 2 Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order, or 3 belief that the court is wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). 4 Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 Accordingly, a district court may properly deny a motion for reconsideration that simply 6 reiterates an argument already presented by the petitioner. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 7 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for 8 reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 9 which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 10 exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time 11 of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). The decision to grant or deny a motion for relief 12 from judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Turner v. 13 Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003); Harman v. Harper, 7 14 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). 15 Here, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show reconsideration is 16 warranted. Specifically, their Motion fails to present newly discovered evidence that 17 would change the outcome of the Court’s ruling or show that the Court committed clear 18 error. In fact, Defendants’ Motion merely reiterates the same arguments already 19 rejected by the Court. Merely inviting the Court to revisit its previous decision is 20 insufficient to justify the relief sought. See, e.g., Twentieth Century-Fox, 637 F.2d at 21 1341. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 86) is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: November 19, 2019 24 25 26 27 28