Arellano v. Blahnik

Filing 183

ORDER Denying Motion to File Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 182 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 4/15/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ARRELLANO,

Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 182]

BLAHNIK,
Defendant.

15
16
17

On March 30, 2021, this Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for

18

summary judgment regarding punitive damages (hereinafter the “MSJ Order”). [Doc.

19

No. 179.] On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a motion for reconsideration

20

of that order. [Doc. No. 182.]

21

A. Motion for reconsideration.

22

Although the FRCP do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, “(a)

23

district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders

24

prior to the entry of judgment …” Posthearing Procedures, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ.

25

Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475

26

(2005).

27
28

However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent
highly unusual circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted “unless
1
16cv2412-CAB-MSB

1

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or

2

if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate

3

of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(internal quotes omitted).

4

B. Discussion.

5

Here, Plaintiff states he would like to file a motion for reconsideration because he

6

believes the Court “overlooked” some of the arguments Plaintiff made in his opposition

7

to the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 182 at 1.] Plaintiff states he does not

8

have a copy of his prior opposition, but then make five arguments that he says were made

9

in his prior opposition and that this Court either overlooked or got wrong. [Doc. No. 182

10

at 1 – 5.] Given that Plaintiff sets forth his arguments, the Court treats his motion as one

11

for reconsideration of the MSJ Order.

12

The Court fully considered Plaintiff’s opposition when ruling on the motion for

13

summary judgment regarding punitive damages. In this motion, Plaintiff has not

14

presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown clear error or an intervening

15

change in the controlling law. Rather, he merely reargues points he made in his prior

16

opposition. This is not a basis for reconsideration and, therefore, his motion is DENIED.

17
18

C. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to file motion for reconsideration is

19

DENIED. Moreover, this Court will not entertain any further motions for

20

reconsideration of this issue. Plaintiff is free to appeal this Court’s rulings to the

21

appropriate court of appeals at the appropriate time.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2021

24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2412-CAB-MSB