1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 IAN MERRITT, an individual, Case No.: 23cv1031-CAB-KSC

14 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

15 v. RECONSIDERATION

16 JONATHAN COGLEY, an individual; AND DOES 1 TO 30, inclusive, [Doc. No. 38] 17 Defendants. 18

19 On July 26, 2024, this Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 20 to File First Amended Complaint (the “July 26 Order”). [Doc. No. 34.] On August 23, 21 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 26 Order. [Doc. No. 38.] On 22 September 13, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. 23 [Doc. No. 43.] No reply has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for 24 reconsideration is DENIED. 25 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 26 However, Rule 59(e) is not applicable because it governs motions to alter or amend a final 27 judgment. Nevertheless, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a traditional motion 28 1 for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(i) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 2 Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party seeking reconsideration must show “what new 3 or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not 4 shown” in connection with a prior application or motion that was denied. CivLR 7.1(i). 5 “The moving party under Rule 60(b) is entitled to relief from judgment for the following 6 reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 7 evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the 8 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any 9 other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Am. Ironworks & 10 Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 Plaintiff does not satisfy any of the requirements for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s 12 motion does not present any new facts or evidence justifying reconsideration. Rather, 13 Plaintiff’s motion simply repeats arguments previously presented. Plaintiff’s claim that 14 the Court had an “erroneous understanding of certain material facts in Plaintiff’s moving 15 papers” [Doc. No. 38 at 3], is merely another way of saying that Plaintiff disagrees with 16 the Court’s conclusions in the July 26 Order. Finally, Plaintiff fails to show any other basis 17 for reconsideration, such as mistake, fraud or intervening change in the law. 18 Ultimately, the Court echoes the following sentiment expressed by another district 19 judge that motions for reconsideration should not be used merely as an intermediate 20 “appeal” before taking a disputed ruling to the Ninth Circuit: 21 The Court cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Rules allowing for motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide litigants with a second 22 bite at the apple. Rather, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 23 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th 24 Cir. 2000). In an adversarial system such as ours, more often than not one 25 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 26 believe that its position lacked merit, or that the Court was correct in ruling 27 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 28 1 vast majority of these motions represent a simple rehash of the arguments 7 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 3 consider only his or her own motion, and the seemingly manifest injustice that A 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 5 that have not yet been before the Court once, let alone twice. 6 This is not to say that a motion for reconsideration is never well-taken. A 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 8 change in controlling authority, or other critical matters that the Rules provide should be brought to the Court’s attention in this way. On this basis, motions 9 for reconsideration should be few, far between, and narrowly focused. When 10 this is the case, the Rules work as they were intended, and the Court can focus iW on the business of justice. 12 || Strobel v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, No. 04CV1069 BEN(BLM), 2007 WL 1053454, 13 || at *3—-4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2007). The Court considered the arguments set forth in the 14 ||motion for reconsideration and is not persuaded that its July 26 Order was incorrect. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant’s request to 16 ||seek leave to submit a declaration of counsel concerning fees and costs incurred in 17 || preparing his opposition is also DENIED. 18 19 It is SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: September 27, 2024 € 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28