Banks v. ACS Education et al

Filing 214

ORDER Construing Submitted Motions [Doc. Nos. 96, 98, 102, 103, 115, 119, 121] as Motions Responsive to the Second Amended Complaint and denying 106 Motion for Reconsideration re 179 Second Amended Complaint filed by Alfred Banks. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 08/25/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALFRED BANKS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 ACS EDUCATION CORP., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 10cv1886 AJB (CAB) ORDER CONSTRUING SUBMITTED MOTIONS [Doc. Nos. 96, 98, 102, 103, 115, 119, 121] AS MOTIONS RESPONSIVE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 106] On July 19, 2011, with the Court's leave, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint 18 ("SAC"). Since the SAC did not materially alter the claims from the First Amended Complaint, but 19 merely added Defendants previously dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution, the Court hereby 20 construes the following motions to dismiss, [Doc. Nos. 96, 98, 102, 103, 115, 119] and the motion for 21 judgment on the pleadings, [Doc. No. 121], as motions on the SAC in an effort to avoid the needless 22 refiling of the seven motions. 23 On March 9, 2011, the Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration, [Doc. No. 106], of this 24 Court’s March 2, 2011, Order setting aside entry of default judgment, [Doc. No. 100]. Under Rule 59(e) 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later 26 than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and 27 amend a previous order, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 28 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 1 10CV1886 1 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quoting 2 Kona, 229 F.3d at 890 (citations omitted)). In the Southern District of California, motions for reconsid- 3 eration are also governed by Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). The rule requires that for any motion for reconsid- 4 eration, 5 6 7 it shall be the continuing duty of each party and attorney seeking such relief to present to the judge ... an affidavit of a party or witness or certified statement of an attorney setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application. Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). 8 9 The Plaintiff does not allege that there is newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in 10 the controlling law. Plaintiff’s motion simply reiterates arguments already submitted and rejected by 11 this Court. Mere disagreement with a court's analysis in a previous order is not a sufficient basis for 12 reconsideration. Nor does reassertion of arguments already extended and rejected provide an appropri- 13 ate justification for reconsidering the Court's Order. Insofar as the Court, in issuing its previous Order, 14 already carefully considered and analyzed the very arguments Plaintiff again raises, the Court finds it 15 unnecessary to readdress them. The Court accordingly finds reconsideration is not warranted and 16 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 DATED: August 25, 2011 20 21 Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia U.S. District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 10CV1886

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?