ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT 
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On August 15, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice federal and state claims against Defendants Venable LLP and David Meyer brought by Plaintiffs ESG Capital Partners, LP and its limited partners. The Court found that Plaintiffs' claim under Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 failed due to a lack of misrepresentations made by Venable or Meyer or any reliance by Plaintiffs. The Court also found that the strict one-year statute of limitations in California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 barred Plaintiffs' state-law claims. The Court subsequently entered partial judgment in favor of Venable and Meyer.
On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment. Since the Court finds that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint still fails to state a valid claim against Venable or Meyer, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court incorporates the factual background set forth in its August 15, 2013 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 56.) In that Order, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims against Venable and Meyer with prejudice. The Court subsequently issued a partial judgment in favor of those Defendants on September 13, 2013. (ECF No. 78.)
On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the September 13, 2013 Judgment. (ECF No. 91.) Venable and Meyer joined in a timely opposition to that Motion. (ECF Nos. 96, 97.) The Motion is now before the Court for decision.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may move to alter or amend a judgment. One avenue for altering or amending a judgment is via a motion for reconsideration under a district court's local rules. Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983).
A motion to alter or amend a judgment is an "extraordinary remedy" which should be used sparingly. Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Mktg. Ltd., 919 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1117 (D. Nev. 2013). The Central District Local Rules elucidate the proper bases for which a party may seek reconsideration:
(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. [L.R. 7-18.]
Additionally, "[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." Id.
Plaintiffs move to alter or amend the Court's Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for conversion, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the Court's findings regarding Plaintiffs' Securities and Exchange Act and common-law fraud claims. ESG and its limited partners contend that the Court "must" reinstate its causes ...