1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY JOHNSON, Case No.: 20cv1354

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AMENDED 11 v. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 12 DAVID KINNEY; STORIX, INC.; et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On March 30, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Storix, Inc.’s motion to dismiss 16 Plaintiff Anthony Johnson’s remaining cause of action on grounds of (1) impermissible 17 claim splitting between two district courts and (2) res judicata (the “March 30 Order”).1 18 The Clerk entered judgment against Plaintiff on the same day. On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff 19 first filed a motion to reconsider, withdrew it, and then filed an amended motion to 20 reconsider the March 30 Order, arguing that the Court committed “manifest errors of law” 21 and “failed to acknowledge numerous arguments and authority in [his] opposition” to the 22 motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 76-1 at 2. For the following reasons, the Court denies 23 Plaintiff’s amended motion to reconsider [Dkt. 76]. 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed an earlier case in this district, Johnson v. Altamirano, Case no. 3:19-cv-1185 (S.D. Cal.) (“Altamirano”), against Storix, Inc.; Storix shareholders and directors (the “Partner-Defendants”); and 28 1 At the outset, the Court construes the motion for reconsideration, which Plaintiff 2 files pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6), as a Rule 59(e) 3 motion. Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used 4 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. 5 Nakatani,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit identifies 6 three grounds for reconsideration, (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) an intervening 7 change in controlling law, or (3) to correct clear error in the prior decision or a result of 8 manifest injustice. See Mustafa v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 9 1998); see also Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian 10 Nation,

(9th Cir. 2003). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to 11 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 12 been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll,

. 13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish that new facts, new law, clear error, or manifest 14 injustice merit reconsideration of the Court’s March 30 Order. Plaintiff’s motion identifies 15 no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff also fails 16 to establish clear error in the March 30 Order. For the reasons set forth in the March 30 17 Order, the Court concludes its rulings there—that (1) Storix and the Altamirano Partner- 18 Defendants are in privity; (2) Plaintiff’s conversion claim in the Altamirano case and his 19 claim for “money had and received” in this case involve the same primary right, the same 20 transactional nucleus of facts, and the same requested relief; and (3) application of federal 21 and state claim preclusion law yields the same results—are not clearly erroneous. See 22 Dkt. 73. Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that the March 30 Order 23 resulted in manifest injustice because it allowed Storix “to retain substantial money owed 24 to Johnson” on which “Johnson has already paid income tax.” Dkt. 76-1 at 2. The Court’s 25 ruling based on claim splitting and res judicata was premised on the fact that Johnson had 26 the opportunity to raise his concerns regarding these substantial sums elsewhere. 27 28 1 After review of the briefs on the motion to reconsider and the record as a whole, the 2 || Court concludes that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is not warranted here and 3 || denies the motion. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || DATED: August 17, 2022 = 6 Honedipiek District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28