Dang
Dang v. Pontier
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH DANG d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF Case No.: 19cv1519 GPC(AHG) JOSEPH DANG, an individual`,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
Plaintiff, PONTIER’S MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION ON MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
DAVID PONTIER, an individual; 15 TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, [Dkt. No. 137.] a self-funded group health plan; TEOCO Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; 17 UMR Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Glenn C. Nusbaum, an individual; Paul E. Kim, MD Inc., a California corporation; Kevin 19 Yoo, an individual, 20 Defendants.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is Defendant David Pontier’s motion for rehearing on motion for sanctions which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 137.) Dang filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 140.) Pontier filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 151.) A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district court is provided with (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or manifest injustice, or…