Anthony
Marian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP
MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE
JOHANESEN,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. OF DECEMBER 3, 2025 ORDERS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF No. 46] Defendants.
16 The Court entered two Orders on December 3, 2025 (“December 3 Orders”). (See 17 ECF Nos. 43, 44.) Plaintiffs now object to the Orders under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 72(a). (See Mot., ECF No. 46.) In an abundance of caution, the Court construes 19 Plaintiffs’ “objections” as a motion for reconsideration under Rules 72(a) and 59(e).1 20 Under Rule 72(a), a district court judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling 21 on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is 22 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 23 24 25 1 It appears Plaintiffs challenge only some of the…