Whitsitt v. Patricio Enterprises et al

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/29/2015 DENYING 65 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-00118-KJM-GGH

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

PATRICIO ENTERPRISES, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17
18

On September 18, 2015, plaintiff William Whitsitt moved for reconsideration of

19

this court’s previous order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. ECF No. 65. Mr.

20

Whitsitt’s motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

21

The court may grant relief under that Rule 60(b) on the basis of mistake, newly

22

discovered evidence, fraud, when the judgment is void or satisfied, or for “any other reason that

23

justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “[A] Rule 60(b)(1) reconsideration motion should not

24

merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have been raised in the original

25

briefs.” San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1197,

26

1208 (E.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d, 672 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2012).

27
28

Here, Mr. Whitsitt has not identified any mistake or other ground for
reconsideration. He contends, as in his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
1

1

recommendations, that he timely filed an EEOC claim on December 20, 2012. See Objections

2

at 6, ECF No. 52. The court acknowledged this fact in its previous order but found it did not

3

satisfy the statutory requirement. See Order Mar. 31, 2015, at 2, ECF No. 63. Neither did the

4

court interpret that requirement as a jurisdictional bar; rather, it concluded Mr. Whitsitt had

5

identified no ground for equitable relief. See id.

6

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: September 29, 2015.

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2