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)
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?