Madrid
Madrid v. Lazer Spot, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 CONRADO MADRID, Case No. 1:19-cv-00669-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER
v. (Doc. 76) LAZER SPOT, INC.,
Defendant. 16 The plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its order reminding counsel that the deadline to file a non-dispositive motion had passed and reminding them that if they needed to file such a motion, they must comply with Fed. R.Civ.P. 16. (Doc. 76) Seemingly, his beef is not with the passing of the non- dispositive motion deadline or that Congress, in enacting Fed.R.Civ.P.16, required a showing of good cause to allow such motions to be filed late, but that he must file a formal motion at all. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. I. Reconsideration should be granted in extraordinary situations Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A reconsideration…