Terry Williams-IIunga v. Andrea Gonzalez et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 57 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson .(lc). Modified on 8/6/2013. (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRY WILLIAMS-ILUNGA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
ANDREA GONZALEZ; ANA TROVBWISNEV; PRODUCER-WRITERS
GUILD OF AMERICA PENSION
PLAN; TRUSTEES OF THE
PRODUCER-WRITERS GUILD OF
AMERICA; WRITERS GUILD OF
AMERICA WEST; WRITERS GUILD
OF AMERICA EAST,

18
19

Defendants.
___________________________

20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08592 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Dkt. No. 57]

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Terry Williams-

21

Ilunga’s Motion for Clarification or, in the Alternative,

22

Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,

23

Etc.

24

the Motion.

25

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court DENIES

A motion for reconsideration is properly granted on a showing

26

that (1) newly discovered evidence demands a contrary result; (2)

27

the court committed clear error or its decision was manifestly

28

unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling

1

law.

2

In addition, Local Rule 7-18 provides that:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003).

A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion
may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material
difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court
before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for
reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the
emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a
manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts
presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for
reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or
written argument made in support of or in opposition to the
original motion.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.
Plaintiff has not presented any manifest error of fact or law

12

or previously unavailable facts or law that justify reconsideration

13

of the dismissal of her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

14

Plaintiff’s papers present additional and expanded arguments

15

indicating her disagreement with the court’s dismissal of the FAC,

16

but this on its own does not justify reconsideration.

17

the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Accordingly,

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:August 6, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2