ArchitectureArt, LLC v. City of San Diego et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 59 Motion for Reconsideration re 54 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. Court finds there are no unusual circumstances or clear error in the initial decision. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/4/2017. (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHITECTUREART LLC, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 15-cv-01592-BAS-NLS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff ArchitectureArt, LLC (“AArt”) brings this Motion for 20 Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the Court 21 to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 54) granting Summary Judgment in favor of 22 Defendant City of San Diego (“City”). The Court finds this motion suitable for 23 determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See CivLR 24 7.1(d)(1). 25 A district court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless: (1) it is 26 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) it committed clear error or the initial 27 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there was an intervening change in controlling 28 law. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (citing Kona Enterprise, Inc. v. Estate of –1– 15cv1592 1 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “There may also be other highly unusual 2 circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 3 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to 4 reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be 5 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 6 Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quotations omitted). 7 In this case, AArt does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence 8 or an intervening change in the controlling law. Instead, making the same arguments 9 it did in the Motion for Summary Judgment, it essentially argues the Court was wrong 10 in its decision. This is an insufficient basis upon which to grant a motion for 11 reconsideration. Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 12 2013 WL 3810592, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (explaining that a motion for 13 reconsideration will be denied where the motion reflects the same arguments, facts 14 and case law that were previously considered and ruled upon by the court); Becker v. 15 Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:12–cv–501 KJM CKD, 2013 WL 3242249, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 June 25, 2013) (“[A] motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle for 17 rehashing arguments the court has already considered.”) (citation omitted). After 18 reviewing the Motion, the Court finds there are no unusual circumstances or clear 19 error in the initial decision. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF 20 No. 59.) 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 4, 2017 23 24 25 26 27 28 –2– 15cv1592

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?