Romo, Jr. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ISMAEL ROMO, JR., Case No.: 19cv01120 JAH-MSB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 69] COSTCO WHOLESALE

CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply. Deeming the motion suitable for determination without oral argument, the Court took the matter under submission and vacated the hearing date. After a thorough review of the parties’ submissions and for the reasons discuss below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), district courts have the inherent authority to reconsider interlocutory rulings at their discretion until a final judgment is 28 …