Martinez v. Madden et al

Filing 77

ORDER Denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 4/20/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RONALD MARTINEZ,

11

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-1298-GPC-MDD
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
[ECF No. 76]

14
15

R. MADDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez’s (“Plaintiff”) filed an

19 “Objection to the Courts [sic] Order Denying Motion to Enforce Settlement.” (ECF No.
20 76.) The Court construes this as a motion to reconsider.1 As Plaintiff has failed to show
21 that reconsideration is warranted, see Marlyn Natraceuticals,Inc. v.Mucos Pharma
22 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5
23 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882
24 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989), Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is DENIED.
25 However, as Plaintiff declares that he has not received a copy of the executed
26
27
1

The Court does not generally entertain objections to its orders unless the order
28 specifically so allows. However, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 do allow
parties to file motions for reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59, 60.
-1-

3:12-cv-1298-GPC-MDD

1 settlement agreement, though Defendants R. Madden and A.B. Gervin (“Defendants”)
2 declare it has been sent, the Court does find it appropriate to direct Defendants to send
3 Plaintiff a copy of the executed settlement, on or before May 1, 2015.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 DATED: April 20, 2015
6
7
8

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

3:12-cv-1298-GPC-MDD