UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 28, 2012
ANYTIME TOWING; LIENENFORCEMENT COLLECTION SERVICES; LIENENFORCEMENT, INC.; BILLY ANDAL; EMERY ENRIQUEZ; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DOES 1-10, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Gonzalo P. CURIELUnited States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 174.]
On November 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment filed on November 13, 2012. Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration is "appropriate if the district court is provided with (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or manifest injustice, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must include an affidavit or certified statement of a party or attorney "setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new and different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown upon such prior application." Local Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1).
Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of the Court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and seeks leave to file an amended complaint to include evidence and parties discovered since the submission of his motion to amend the complaint filed in September 2011. He claims that his first amended complaint has never been filed as it was rejected by the Court on a discrepancy on April 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 59.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Anytime Towing filed a late answer without showing good cause. Lastly, Plaintiff also attempts to reargue his claims against Defendants.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted. Plaintiff must show that there was newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law since the filings of the motions for summary judgment. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Here, Plaintiff complains of issues that existed since the early stages of the case back in 2011. The Court also notes that a First Amended Complaint was filed on March 26, 2012. Therefore, his attempt to file another First Amended Complaint was rejected on discrepancy on April 19, 2012. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be denied.
Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.