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)

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)