Farr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIEARA FARR, Case No. 4:20-CV-8619-YGR

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING MOTION

vs. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

ACIMA CREDIT LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 34 and 54 Defendant.

9 Plaintiff brings this motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying class certification 10 based on defendant’s preemptive motion prior to discovery. (Dkt. No. 54.) For the reasons stated 11 below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a court may revise any interlocutory order in its 13 discretion. However, reconsideration of a prior ruling is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 14 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. 15 Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 16 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 17 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is…