Estate of Tyler S. Rushing v. AG Private Protection, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ESTATE OF TYLER S. RUSHING, No. 2:18-cv-01692-MCE-AC et al., 11 Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER v. 13 AG PRIVATE PROTECTION, INC., 14 et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By way of this action, Plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries sustained as a result of 18 a fatal altercation between Tyler S. Rushing (“Decedent”) and various named 19 Defendants, which include employees of a private security firm as well as members of 20 the Chico Police Department and the Butte County Sheriff’s Office (generally referred to 21 as “Defendants”). The Court previously denied a Motion for Summary Adjudication (ECF 22 No. 23) brought by Plaintiffs as to the discrete issue of whether one Defendant, Officer 23 Alex Fliehr, (“Officer Fliehr”) used excessive force when he used his taser against 24 Decedent after Decedent had been shot. ECF No. 35. Presently before the Court is 25 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. ECF No. 36. For the following 26 reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED as well.1 27 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 28 matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 1 A court should not revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances 2 show that its prior decision was wrong. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 3 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). This principle is generally embodied in the law of the case 4 doctrine. That doctrine counsels against reopening questions once resolved in ongoing 5 litigation. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 6 1989) (citing 18 Charles Aland Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 7 § 4478). Nonetheless, a court order resolving fewer than all of the claims among all of 8 the parties “may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the 9 claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Where 10 reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has “inherent jurisdiction to 11 modify, alter or revoke it.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 12 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1002 (2001). “The major grounds that justify 13 reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new 14 evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid, 15 882 F.2d at 369 n.5 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 16 Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for reconsideration to show the 17 “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were 18 not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” E.D. Cal. 19 Local Rule 230(j). A district court may properly deny a motion for reconsideration that 20 simply reiterates an argument already presented by the petitioner. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 21 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). Finally, reconsideration requests are addressed to the 22 sound discretion of the district court. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 23 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// wOAOe 2.40 UV VEY YOUNIS Ne OU PO ee OY VV VI 1 Plaintiffs do not point the Court to any basis for revisiting its prior decision. 2 | Although they clearly disagree with the Court's order, that disagreement is not based on 3 | an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to 4 | correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Pyramid, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5. 5 | Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 36) is thus DENIED. 6 IT |S SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: May 19, 2020 8 □ 9 MORRISON C. ENGLAND, J UNITED STATES DISTRI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28