Vijuve Inc v. Kaspien Inc

1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 3 Aug 08, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON VIJUVE INC., a Florida corporation, 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:21-CV-00192-SAB 11 v. KASPIEN INC., a Washington ORDER DENYING MOTION corporation, FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Defendant.

16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order, ECF No. 133. Defendant is represented by Charles Hausberg and Kelly E. Konkright. Plaintiff is represented by Constance Proctor and Edward Redmond.

20 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment).

25 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. IJ, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion 5|| of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc., 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).

8 Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law.

9)| At present, there is no: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or evidence the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or; (3) intervening change in controlling Therefore, the motion is denied.

12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order, ECF No. 133, is DENIED.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel.

17 DATED this 8th day of August 2023.

Sfaukeyld Eectear 22 om 74 Stanley A. Bastian 34 Chief United States District Judge