American Fireglass v. Moderustic Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AMERICAN FIREGLASS, Case No.: 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
v. MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
MODERUSTIC INC.,
Defendant. (ECF No. 148) 16 Presently before the Court is Defendant Moderustic Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF No. 148), asking the Court to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 145) granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff American Fireglass. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 160) the Motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to request a court to alter or amend its judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v.…