Arellano, Jr. v. Dean et al

Filing 120

ORDER denying 119 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/20/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,

Case No.: 15-CV-2247 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

v.
DR. K. DEAN, et al.,

(ECF No. 119)
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (“Mot.,” ECF No.

20

119). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its March 20, 2020 Order in which the Court

21

denied reconsideration of its previous ruling granting summary judgment in favor of

22

Defendant Pasha.

23

District courts may “reconsider and revise a previous interlocutory decision” at any

24

time before final judgment. Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968

25

(S.D. Cal. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the Southern District of California, a

26

party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

27

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or

28

in part.” Civ. Local R. 7.1(i)(1). Under the Civil Local Rules, the moving party must file
1
15-CV-2247 JLS (JLB)

1

for reconsideration within twenty-eight days after entry of the ruling and provide an

2

affidavit setting forth, among other things, “new or different facts and circumstances”

3

which previously did not exist at the time the previous motion was filed. Id.

4

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

5

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

6

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts “should generally leave a previous decision

7

undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest

8

injustice.” Hydranautics, 306 F. Supp. 2d at 968 (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus.

9

Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)). A party seeking reconsideration may not

10

raise new arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them

11

earlier. Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d

12

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

13

reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris,

14

331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883).

Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for

15

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered facts or intervening changes in the

16

controlling law. See generally Mot. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed

17

clear error in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Pasha.

18

Id. Plaintiff, however, raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that this Court

19

already considered—twice—which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See

20

Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at

21

*2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion

22

reflected the same arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled

23

upon by the court). The Court therefore DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2020

26
27
28
2
15-CV-2247 JLS (JLB)