Wright v. Tehachapi Unified School District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMY AND BUDDY WRIGHT, ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-01214 JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. ) 14 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL ) (Doc. 83) DISTRICT, ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 The defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order granting attorneys fees to the plaintiff 18 related to the ongoing attempts to obtain payment of the judgment.1. (Doc. 82) 19 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality 20 and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A 21 reconsideration motion “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” McDowell v. 22 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059 (1989). A reconsideration 23 motion “is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a 24 rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ 25 Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 26 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by 27 28 1 Because the motion adequately sets forth the basis for the motion and it is unopposed, the Court will not benefit by 1 the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” United 2 States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations 3 omitted). “To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 4 court to reverse its prior decision.” Id. 5 Reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) 6 has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is presented with an 7 intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J, Multnomah County v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 8 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). In addition, there may be other highly 9 unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. Under this Court’s Local Rule 230(j), a party 10 seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 11 exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the 12 motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 13 The defense is correct that the Court improperly permitted $1,150 in fees for bringing the 14 motion for fees. Wright v. District of Columbia, 883 F.Supp.2d 132, 134 (D.D.C 2012). Thus, the 15 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the fee award (Doc. 82) is reduced by $1,150 to 16 $15,700. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 5, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28