UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2013
DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD, PLAINTIFF,
SONY INC., COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC.; AEG LIVE AND ANSHUTZ COMPANY; JOHN BLANCA; JOHN MCCLAIN; CIRQUE DU SOLEIL AND CORPORATE GLOBAL PARTNERS; TIME WARNER; HOME BOX OFFICE; WARNER BROS.; ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO RECUSE AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkts. No. 16 & 19]
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff David Whitehead's second Motion for Recusal Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. 455(a) & (b1) and on his Motion for Reconsideration for Recusal. Plaintiff's second Motion to Recuse, filed on December 19, 2012, is identical to the Motion to Recuse that he filed on December 12, 2012, and that this court denied on December 14, 2012. The court again DENIES the Motion to Recuse, on the same grounds as stated in the court's Order of December 14, 2012.
Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate where "(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). "Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless [one of the above three criteria is met]." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff presents no new evidence, clear error, or change in law that would lead this court to reconsider its original denial of the Motion to Recuse. For this reason, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.