1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Michael Krause, No. 1:21-cv-01706-KJM-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Tara Krause, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is before the court. Mot., ECF No. 112. Plaintiff 18 | seeks reconsideration of the prior district judge’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s findings and 19 | recommendations. Adoption Order, ECF No. 109. Defendant filed a response, which this court 20 | construes as an opposition, to plaintiff's motion. Response, ECF No. 116. For the following 21 | reasons and for the reasons explained in this court’s previous order granting attorneys’ fees, ECF 22 | No. 122, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. 23 Local Rule 230(j) governs motions for reconsideration. In pertinent part, a party seeking 24 | reconsideration must: “‘set[ ] forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding [the] motion 25 | ...including: what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not 26 | exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 27 | L.R. 230G)(3). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 28 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

1 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 2 | Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 3 | omitted and alteration in original). It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for 4 | reconsideration where the underlying order is merely “erroneous,” rather than “clearly 5 | erroneous.” McDowell v. Calderon,

, 1255 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). “Mere doubts or 6 | disagreement about the wisdom of a prior decision . . . will not suffice .... To be clearly 7 | erroneous, a decision must ... [be] more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must be dead 8 | wrong.” Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., Inc., No. 09-748,

, at *1 9 | (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011) (quoting Hopwood v. State of Tex.,

(Sth Cir. 2000)); 10 | see also Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

(7th Cir. 2000) (movant must demonstrate 11 | a “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent”). 12 Plaintiff's motion does not include any “new or different facts or circumstances [that] are 13 | claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3). 14 | Instead, the motion attempts to relitigate various parts of the record already addressed in detail by 15 | the magistrate judge and previously assigned district judge in her order of adoption. To the extent 16 | plaintiff argues the finding and recommendations failed to identify the responsible attorneys and 17 | is thereby procedurally flawed, the court disagrees and addressed this argument in its own order 18 | awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. Order (Apr. 23, 2025) at 7-8, ECF No. 122. 19 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff has not provided justification for the court to depart 20 | from the prior order. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 112, is denied. 21 This order resolves ECF No. 112. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: May 6, 2025. ot 24 al STATES DISTRICT JUDGE