United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. No. 11.]
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants John F. Kerry, Janice Jacobs, David Donahue, and Ian Brownlee's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion for Reconsideration"). (Dkt. No. 11.) Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court's July 18, 2013, Order ("July 18th Order"), (Dkt. No. 9), which denied Defendants' April 2, 2013, Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss"), (Dkt. No. 6). The Motion for Reconsideration has been fully briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 20.)
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court has found this matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument. (Dkt. No. 21.) Having reviewed the parties' briefs and relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.
On January 13, 2011, Plaintiff Marel Macias ("Plaintiff Macias"), a citizen and resident of the United States, filed a petition to immigrate her husband, Plaintiff Joel Beltran Angulo ("Plaintiff Angulo"), a citizen and resident of Mexico, to the United States. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff Angulo's immigrant visa application ("Application") was denied pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) in or around October 2012. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, ¶ 7.)
On January 25, 2013, Plaintiff Macias and Plaintiff Angulo (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed the instant action seeking judicial review of the denial of Plaintiff Angulo's Application ("Complaint"). (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 2, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the reason Plaintiff Angulo's Application was denied was both facially legitimate and bona fide. (Dkt. No 6 at 8.) The Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on July 18, 2013. (Dkt. No. 9.)
By the present motion, filed on August 7, 2013, Defendants move the Court to reconsider the July 18th Order and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Dkt. No. 11 at 6.) Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration on September 29, 2013, (Dkt. No. 16), and Defendants filed a reply on October 24, 2013, (Dkt. No. 20).
A. Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is "appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 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). Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. Norris , 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop , 229 F.3d 887, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)). Although the court may reconsider and amend a previous order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), "the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'" Kona , 229 F.3d at 890 (quoting 12 James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30 (3d ed. 2000)).
B. Motion to Dismiss
As stated in the July 18th Order, a motion to dismiss brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). "[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, ' and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis , 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).
To warrant reconsideration, Defendants must demonstrate the July 18th Order: (1) showed clear error of law; (2) was manifestly unjust; or (3) warrants reconsideration as a result of newly discovered facts or an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Defendants make no showing of new facts or law or that the July 18th Order was manifestly unjust. See id. Defendants argue the Court committed clear error because the July 18th Order is "not in accord" with the Ninth Circuit's ...