1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN FIREGLASS, Case No.: 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 MODERUSTIC INC.,

15 Defendant. (ECF No. 148) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Moderustic Inc.’s Motion for 18 Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF No. 148), asking the Court to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 19 145) granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff American Fireglass. Also before 20 the Court is Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 160) the Motion. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to request a court to alter or 22 amend its judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented 23 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change 24 in the controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan,

(9th Cir. 2014) (internal 25 quotation marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 26 1999) (en banc)) (emphasis in original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to 27 be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona 28 Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether 1 grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district 2 ||court. Navajo Nation v. Norris,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 3 F.3d at 883). 4 Here, Defendant has not presented any newly discovered facts or intervening 5 ||changes in the controlling law. See generally Mot. Instead, Defendant argues that the 6 ||Court committed clear error in granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. /d. 7 Defendant contends that “[t]he Court erred as a matter of law by misapplying summary 8 ||judgment standards, prior art analysis and failing to consider key evidence showing 9 || material facts in dispute as to obviousness and commercial success.” Mot. at 2. In making 10 arguments, however, Defendant raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that 11 || this Court already considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See 12 || Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721—GPC-BGS,

, at 13 } }*2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion 14 || reflected the same arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled 15 |}upon by the court). After considering Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds no clear error 16 the initial decision and therefore DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. See 17 ||ArchitectureArt LLC vy. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-01592-BAS-NLS,

|| 1346899, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying motion for reconsideration where movant 19 || rehashed the same arguments made in its motion for summary judgment). 20 In its Opposition, Plaintiff requests the Court impose sanctions under Federal Rule 21 Civil Procedure 11(b) because, among other things, Defendant allegedly makes false 22 ||statements of fact. Opp’n at 5-6. Plaintiff did not make this request in accordance with 23 11(c)(2) and, in any event, the Court does not find sanctions warranted in this case. 24 || Plaintiff's request for sanctions is therefore DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: October 4, 2019 peach Jt, oe waited 27 on. Janis L. Sammartino 28 United States District Judge