1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA HERTA, Case No.: 24cv1771-CAB-AHG

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. RECONSIDERATION

13 MICHELLE IALEGGIO, [Doc. No. 9] 14 Defendants. 15 16 In this case, Plaintiff Maria Herta sues a San Diego Superior Court judge who was 17 allegedly involved in family court proceedings involving Plaintiff concerning custody and 18 visitation rights over her child. The gravamen of the allegations in the complaint and 19 amended complaint is that Plaintiff is unhappy with the outcome of her family court 20 proceedings and the manner in which the Superior Court judge handled her case. On 21 October 21, 2024, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that her claim 22 is barred by judicial immunity, and granted her leave to amend. [Doc. No. 3.] On 23 November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed what appeared to be an amended complaint. [Doc. No. 24 6.] On November 19, 2024, this Court dismissed the case with prejudice, as the amended 25 complaint did not cure the deficiencies and was also barred by judicial immunity. [Doc. 26 No. 7.] 27 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the dismissal with prejudice of her claims 28 against the Superior Court Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). “The 1 moving party under Rule 60(b) is entitled to relief from judgment for the following reasons: 2 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; 3 (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is 4 void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason 5 justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Id. 6 Plaintiff does not satisfy any of the requirements for reconsideration under Rule 60. 7 Rather, she simply argues that judicial immunity does not apply. The Court has reviewed 8 the citations provided by Plaintiff and disagrees with her analysis. 9 Ultimately, the Court echoes the following sentiment expressed by another district 10 judge that motions for reconsideration should not be used merely as an intermediate 11 “appeal” before taking a disputed ruling to the Ninth Circuit: 12 The Court cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Rules allowing for motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide litigants with a second 13 bite at the apple. Rather, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 14 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

, 890 (9th 15 Cir. 2000). In an adversarial system such as ours, more often than not one 16 party will win and one will lose. Generally, it follows that the losing party will be unhappy with the Court’s decision. Rarely does the losing party 17 believe that its position lacked merit, or that the Court was correct in ruling 18 against it. Rather than either accept the Court’s ruling or appeal it, it seems to have instead become de rigueur to file a motion for reconsideration. The 19 vast majority of these motions represent a simple rehash of the arguments 20 already made, although now rewritten as though the Court was the opposing party and its Order the brief to be opposed. It is easy for each litigant to 21 consider only his or her own motion, and the seemingly manifest injustice that 22 has been done to them. But the cumulative effect is one of abuse of the system and a drain on judicial resources that could be better used to address matters 23 that have not yet been before the Court once, let alone twice. 24 This is not to say that a motion for reconsideration is never well-taken. A 25 litigant should not shy from bringing to the Court’s attention changes in facts and circumstances that render a ruling no longer logical, an intervening 26 change in controlling authority, or other critical matters that the Rules provide 27 should be brought to the Court’s attention in this way. On this basis, motions for reconsideration should be few, far between, and narrowly focused. When 28 1 this is the case, the Rules work as they were intended, and the Court can focus 7 on the business of justice. 3 || Strobel v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, No. 04CV1069 BEN(BLM),

, A *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2007). 5 While Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s analysis of the application of judicial 6 ||immunity to her claim, that is not a basis for bringing a motion for reconsideration. 7 || Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: December 6, 2024 <6 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28