Arellano v. Blahnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL ARRELLANO, Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-MSB Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 182] BLAHNIK,

Defendant.

On March 30, 2021, this Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding punitive damages (hereinafter the “MSJ Order”). [Doc. No. 179.] On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a motion for reconsideration of that order. [Doc. No. 182.]

A. Motion for reconsideration.

Although the FRCP do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, “(a) district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment …” Posthearing Procedures, Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 12-E, §12:158, quoting Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 US 462, 475 (2005).

However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted “unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. □□ Estate of Bishop, 229 F3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(nternal quotes omitted).

B. Discussion.

Here, Plaintiff states he would like to file a motion for reconsideration because he believes the Court “overlooked” some of the arguments Plaintiff made in his opposition the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 182 at 1.] Plaintiff states he does not have a copy of his prior opposition, but then make five arguments that he says were made his prior opposition and that this Court either overlooked or got wrong. [Doc. No. 182 —5.] Given that Plaintiff sets forth his arguments, the Court treats his motion as one for reconsideration of the MSJ Order.

The Court fully considered Plaintiff's opposition when ruling on the motion for }summary judgment regarding punitive damages. In this motion, Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown clear error or an intervening change in the controlling law. Rather, he merely reargues points he made in his prior opposition. This is not a basis for reconsideration and, therefore, his motion is DENIED. C. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to file motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Moreover, this Court will not entertain any further motions for reconsideration of this issue. Plaintiffis free to appeal this Court’s rulings to the appropriate court of appeals at the appropriate time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2021 € ZL

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge