Alberto Fernando Manfredi, et al. v. Lakeland Village Owners Association, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERTO FERNANDO MANFREDI, et Case No. 2:25-cv-01294-DJC-CSK al., 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 43) 14

LAKELAND VILLAGE OWNERS

15 ASSOCIATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Alberto Fernando Manfredi and Melissa 19 Leigh Manfredi’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 27, 2025 Order 20 denying Plaintiffs’ motion for e-filing access.1 (ECF No. 43.) For the reasons stated 21 below, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 22 A court may properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly 23 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 24 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Smith v. Clark Cnty. 25 Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). The choice to reconsider an order is left to 26 the discretion of the court. See id. “A party seeking…