G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, 10 Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 v. (Doc. 444) 13 GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, 14 INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., 15 Defendants. 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions (“GIS”) brings this Motion for 19 Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider portions of its “Scope of Trial” determination 20 contained in its October 22, 2021 Pretrial Order. (Doc. 444.) The Court finds this motion suitable 21 for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 22 230(g). 23 A district court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless: (1) it is presented with 24 newly discovered evidence, (2) it committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 25 or (3) there was an intervening change in controlling law. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 26 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enterprise, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 27 “There may also be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. 28 No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “While [Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)] permits 1 a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, 2 to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll, 342 3 F.3d at 945 (quotations omitted). 4 In this case, GIS does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence or an 5 intervening change in the controlling law. Instead, making the same arguments it did in its prior 6 briefing (compare Doc. 428 at 33–34 with Doc. 444-1 at 5–6), it essentially argues the Court was 7 wrong in its decision. This is an insufficient basis upon which to grant a motion for reconsideration. 8 Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at *2 (S.D. 9 Cal. July 22, 2013) (explaining that a motion for reconsideration will be denied where the motion 10 reflects the same arguments, facts and case law that were previously considered and ruled upon by 11 the court); Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:12–cv–501 KJM CKD, 2013 WL 3242249, at *1 12 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle for 13 rehashing arguments the court has already considered.”) (citation omitted). After reviewing the 14 Motion, the Court finds there are no unusual circumstances or clear error in the initial decision. 15 Moreover, the Motion does not alleviate the Court’s previously expressed Seventh Amendment 16 concern, namely, that having the second jury decide the same factual issues that were decided by 17 the first appears to implicate the Amendment’s prohibition against reexamination of jury findings. 18 (See Doc. 443 at 10 n.5.) 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.1 (Doc. 444.) 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: October 27, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28