Fust et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 4/1/2024 DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration 46 . (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

DEBORAH FUST, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND EDWARD
PIMENTEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,

15

18
19

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

16
17

No. 2:23-cv-2853 WBS DB

v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION REGISTERED
TO DO BUSINESS AND HEADQUARTERED
IN CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

20
21

----oo0oo----

22

Plaintiffs Deborah Fust and Edward Pimentel request

23
24

that the court reconsider its February 22, 2024 order dismissing

25

their complaint with prejudice (see Docket No. 41).

26

46.)

27
28

(Docket No.

This court's orders on dispositive motions are not
intended to serve merely as tentative rulings.
1

A motion for

1

reconsideration of such an order is an “extraordinary remedy”

2

that should be used “sparingly in the interests of finality and

3

the conservation of judicial resources.”

4

of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

Kona Enters. v. Estate

The court has considered every basis on which

6

plaintiffs now move for reconsideration and concludes that

7

plaintiffs have not presented any newly discovered evidence,

8

shown clear error or manifest injustice, or pointed to an

9

intervening change in controlling law that would justify

10

reconsideration.

11

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).1

12

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Mutnomah County v.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

13

reconsideration (Docket No. 46) be, and the same hereby is,

14

DENIED.

15

Dated:

April 1, 2024

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Contrary to plaintiffs’ present assertions, by relying
upon Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996)
(dealing extensively with Burford abstention), they did argue for
Burford abstention in their original moving papers. The court is
aware of no recognized doctrine of “Burton” abstention.
2
1