Hoeft v. Ballon

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/29/17 DENYING 51 Motion for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICA HOEFT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-02615 CKD (PS)

v.

ORDER

AL BALLON,

15

Defendant.

16
On October 3, 2017, the undersigned granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the Second

17
18

Amended Complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) Before the court is

19

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendant has not filed a

20

response.

21

A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

23

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

24

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

25

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the court’s

26

decision to dismiss this action with prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and

27
28

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings
in this action. (ECF No. 20.)
1

1
2

none of the other factors apply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

3

No. 51) is denied.

4

Dated: November 29, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

2 / hoeft2615.reconsid

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2