CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu

Filing 358

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/21/2024. Defendant Dr. Hu's Motion for partial reconsideration 357 of the final pretrial order 352 and the court's 3/11/2024 order 356 is GRANTED; and Upon reconsideration, defendant Dr. Hu's renewed request that the court modify the pretrial order with respect to relief sought is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ZHIXIANG HU,
Defendant.

15
16

ZHIXIANG HU,

19
20
21
22

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
ORDERS AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
(Doc. No. 357)

17
18

No. 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-DB (PS)

Counter Claimant,
v.
CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION,
Counter Defendant.

23
24

This matter is before the court on defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for partial reconsideration of

25

the final pretrial order issued in this case. (Doc. No. 357.) Defendant Dr. Hu seeks

26

reconsideration of a portion of the court’s final pretrial order that sustained plaintiff CSPC

27

Dophen’s objections to relief sought by defendant Dr. Hu. (Id.) In addition, he requests that the

28

court reconsider a portion of its March 11, 2024 order which denied his motion to amend the final
1

1

pretrial order with respect to relief sought both by plaintiff CSPC Dophen and defendant Dr. Hu

2

in this action. (Id.)

3

The court will grant defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for reconsideration in light of his pro se

4

status and the court’s inherent power to reconsider its own orders. See Credit Suisse First Bos.

5

Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have long recognized ‘the well-

6

established rule that a district judge always has power to modify or to overturn an interlocutory

7

order or decision while it remains interlocutory.’”) (quoting Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis,

8

Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1963)). Nonetheless, having reconsidered both the final pretrial

9

order and its March 11, 2024 order modifying the final pretrial order in part, and despite

10

defendant Dr. Hu’s additional clarification provided in the pending motion, the court is

11

unpersuaded that any modification of the relief sought section of the final pretrial order is

12

necessary or appropriate. (See Doc. No. 352 at 11 n.5.) Thus, defendant Dr. Hu’s renewed

13

request to modify the pretrial order with respect to relief sought will be denied.

14

Accordingly,

15

1.

Defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for partial reconsideration (Doc. No. 357) of the final

16

pretrial order (Doc. No. 352) and the court’s March 11, 2024 order (Doc. No. 356)

17

is granted; and

18

2.

19

the pretrial order with respect to relief sought is denied.

20
21
22
23

Upon reconsideration, defendant Dr. Hu’s renewed request that the court modify

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 21, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2