Raiser v. Casserly et al

Filing 76

ORDER Denying 72 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/15/2020. (tcf)

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 76 Filed 10/15/20 PageID.1215 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON RAISER,

Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(ECF No. 72)

16
17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Application For

18

Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF No. 72). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its August

19

25, 2020 Order in which the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed

20

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice.

21

arguments and the law, the Court DENIES the Motion.

After considering Plaintiff’s

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or

23

amend its judgment. In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for

24

reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or

25

other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Civ.

26

L.R. 7.1(i)(1). The moving party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or

27

different facts and circumstances which previously did not exist. Id.

28

“A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly
1
18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 76 Filed 10/15/20 PageID.1216 Page 2 of 2

1

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

2

controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

3

marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en

4

banc)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

5

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

6

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

controlling law, and the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances that would justify

11

reconsideration. See generally Mot. Instead, Plaintiff argues this Court “fails to address

12

the facts of the complaint,” Mot. at 1, and “never addresses all of Plaintiff’s legal

13

arguments,” Mot. at 2. Plaintiff raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that this

14

Court already considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2020

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)