United States v. Superior Care Pharmacy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-cv-1002-MMA-MSB ex rel. SARAH DUNTSCH,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION v. 14 [Doc. No. 65] SUPERIOR CARE PHARMACY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the government’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Doc. No. 65. Defendants David Walrod and Justus Benjamin filed oppositions, to which the government replied. Doc. Nos. 68–70. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Doc. No. 71. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the government’s motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly allow motions for reconsideration. However, pursuant to Rule 60(b), a court “may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” upon a showing of 28 …