United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On December 5, 2014, the Court issued two orders in this case. First, the Court granted Plaintiff Hendricks & Lewis PLLC's ("H & L") Motion for Assignment Order, Restraining Order, and Turnover Order. (ECF No. 285.) The Court also denied Defendant George Clinton's Motion for Release of Levies, Stay of Enforcement, and Implementation of Installment Payment Plan. (ECF No. 286.) Pending before the Court is Clinton's Motion for Reconsideration, in which he asks the Court to reconsider both of the orders it issued on December 5, 2014. (ECF No. 288.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Clinton's Motion for Reconsideration.
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This action began over four years ago when H & L filed a Certificate of Judgment from the Western District of Washington with this Court. (ECF No. 1.) The Judgment was in favor of H & L and against Clinton in the amount of $1, 675, 639.82. ( Id. ) The underlying dispute involved a decade-old attorneys' fee battle between H & L and Clinton. After filing the Certificate of Judgment, H & L filed a Motion for Assignment Order, Restraining Order, and Turnover Order on December 27, 2010. (ECF No. 5.) The Court initially denied H & L's Motion on September 27, 2011 (ECF No. 171), but that order was subsequently vacated and remanded by the Ninth Circuit, see Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, 596 Fed.Appx. 521 (9th Cir. 2014).
On remand, the Court then granted H & L's previously-denied Motion and denied Clinton's Motion for Release of Levies, Stay of Enforcement, and Implementation of Installment plan. (ECF Nos. 285, 286.) Clinton now moves for the Court to reconsider those Orders. The Court incorporates the Findings of Fact from those previous Orders. ( See id. )
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a party to seek reconsideration of a final judgment or court order. The Central District of California Local Rules provide 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; (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.
Additionally, "[u]nder L.R. 7-18, a motion for reconsideration may not be made on the grounds that a party disagrees with the Court's application of legal precedent." Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 968, 981 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
Clinton's Motion to Reconsider is exclusively based on the Court's alleged "failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision." (ECF No. 288 ["Def. Br."].) Clinton identifies two sets of facts that the Court allegedly failed to consider: (1) the out-of-state status of four affected entities, and (2) the definition of the ...