Martins v. New West Investment Group et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying 144 Plaintiff's Amended Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration of Stricken Motion. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 6/3/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN MARTINS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STRICKEN MOTION v. NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation d/b/a NEW WEST INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation, et al., Defendants. 19 20 Case No.: 18-cv-01731-AJB-AHG (Doc. No. 144) Before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Martins’ (“Plaintiff”) ex parte application for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 144.) Plaintiff seeks the Court’s reconsideration of its decision to strike a filing for failure to comply with chambers’ rules. (Doc. No. 132.) Because Plaintiff presents no clear error of fact or law in the decision, and because the Court’s striking of the document does not prevent Plaintiff from submitting a new filing in accordance with chambers’ rules, there is no manifest injustice, and the Court denies his request for reconsideration. 1 See Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) 1 Plaintiff is free to correct and refile any stricken document, and the Court will accept it so long as the new filing complies with the appropriate rules. 1 18-cv-01731-AJB-AHG 1 (reconsideration may be granted “if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, 2 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”) 3 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2021 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 18-cv-01731-AJB-AHG

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?