Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH LAWRENCE LENK, Case No. 20-cv-08094-BLF (HSG) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 73 10 MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., 11 Defendant.

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Dkt. No. 73. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior order denying his motion to disqualify United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman from the above-captioned case. Id. 17 A party may move to alter or amend a judgment no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to reconsider or amend a previous order under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly . . . .” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). “[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).

26 Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet the high standard required to warrant reconsideration under Rule 59(e). He argues that the Court did not consider all the alleged facts in denying the the evidence he presented. Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s conclusions, but that is not a basis for reconsideration. See Campbell v. City of Milpitas, No. 13-CV-03817-BLF, 2015 WL 3 3396809, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2015) (“At the end of the day, Plaintiffs simply disagree with || the Court’s legal analysis, which is not an appropriate basis for seeking reconsideration.”).

5 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 |} Dated: 11/2/2022 g Alegre 3 Sb).

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge a 12 it 18