Lynn v. Sherman et al

Filing 186

ORDER Denying 184 Motion for Reconsideration; and Denying as Moot 185 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 10/16/20. (dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No.: 19-CV-605 TWR (LL) ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME v. MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 (ECF Nos. 184, 185) 17 18 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Motion for 19 Reconsideration of Order Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification of the 20 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino (“Reconsideration Mot.,” ECF No. 154) and Ex Parte 21 Motion for Order Shortening Time (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 185). Because Plaintiff had 22 sought the disqualification of Judge Sammartino, (see ECF No. 153), her request was 23 mooted by the transfer of this action to the undersigned. See, e.g., Shahin v. Darling, 606 24 F. Supp. 2d 525, 545 (D. Del.) (denying as moot motion for recusal when case was 25 subsequently reassigned to another judge), aff’d, 350 F. App’x 605 (3d Cir. 2009). The 26 Court therefore denied as moot her disqualification motion. (See ECF No. 174.) Plaintiff 27 now seeks reconsideration of that Order based on the “new circumstance” that Defendants’ 28 motions to dismiss contend that certain of Judge Sammartino’s prior legal conclusions are 1 19-CV-605 TWR (LL) 1 “the law of the case.” (See Reconsideration Mot. at 2–3.) Plaintiff additionally requests 2 that her Reconsideration Motion be heard on an expedited basis so that she may receive a 3 decision “ahead of the due date for response to the MTD.” (See Ex Parte Mot. at 2.) 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). Consequently, reconsideration is appropriate in only limited 7 circumstances, such as where “the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 8 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 9 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. 10 AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(2) 11 (requiring any party moving for reconsideration “to present to the judge . . . an affidavit 12 . . . setting forth . . . what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist 13 [that] did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application”). 14 Defendants’ legal arguments are not “newly discovered evidence” or “an intervening 15 change in controlling law” that would permit reconsideration of the Court’s Order. See, 16 e.g., Nash v. Hepp, No. 08-CV-202, 2010 WL 1221739, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 22, 2010) 17 (denying motion for reconsideration because, among other things, a “legal citation [wa]s 18 not ‘evidence’” and, “even if it w[ere] evidence, it [wa]s not ‘newly-discovered’”), aff’d, 19 740 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2014). Consequently, any arguments concerning “the law of the 20 case” are appropriately addressed in Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions to dismiss. The 21 Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Reconsideration Motion and DENIES AS MOOT 22 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2020 25 26 27 28 2 19-CV-605 TWR (LL)

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?