UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 8, 2013
ROBERT GARBER, PLAINTIFF,
HICKMAN #30355, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A DETECTIVE FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 54]
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Robert Garber's Motion for Reconsideration to This Court's Denial of Joinder of LAPD Detective Alvarez.
A motion for reconsideration is properly granted on a showing that (1) newly discovered evidence demands a contrary result; (2) the court committed clear error or its decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, Local Rule 7-18 provides that:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.
Plaintiff has not asserted any material difference in fact or law from what was presented to the court in the original motion. It remains the case that Defendants disclosed Det. Alvarez as a witness in their initial disclosures, dated April 19, 2012.
The court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.