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