Raiser v. Casserly ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 72) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Application For 18 Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF No. 72). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its August 19 25, 2020 Order in which the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed 20 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. After considering Plaintiff’s 21 arguments and the law, the Court DENIES the Motion. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or 23 amend its judgment. In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for 24 reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 25 other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Civ. 26 L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or 27 different facts and circumstances which previously did not exist. Id. 28 “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 1 || discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 2 || controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation 3 ||marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en 4 ||banc)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests 5 || of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 6 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for 7 ||reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 8 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). 9 Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered facts or intervening changes in the 10 || controlling law, and the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances that would justify 11 |/reconsideration. See generally Mot. Instead, Plaintiff argues this Court “fails to address 12 ||the facts of the complaint,” Mot. at 1, and “never addresses all of Plaintiffs legal 13 |}arguments,” Mot. at 2. Plaintiff raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that this 14 ||Court already considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See 15 || Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721—GPC-—BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at 16 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion 17 ||reflected the same arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled 18 |/upon by the court). The Court therefore DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: October 15, 2020 tt 21 pee Janis L. Sammartino 79 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28