United States District Court, S.D. California
JOHN COBB, Plaintiff.
RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), filed by Plaintiff
John Cobb. (Docket No. 86.) Plaintiff asks the Court to
reconsider its orders denying Plaintiffs motion to amend his
Complaint for a third time (Docket No. 76) and his motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 81.) For the reasons stated
below, the Motion is DENIED.
Cobb, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on
June 11, 2013. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed
and served the operative Second Amended Complaint on June 5,
2015 ("SAC"). On May 9, 2016, this Court denied
Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. (Docket No. 76.) Plaintiff sought to add a
defendant, Officer Jason Zdunich, and add claims against
Zdunich and the City of San Diego based on information
learned from discovery. The Court found that amendment would
prejudice the named and proposed defendants, and that
Plaintiff had not shown diligence in seeking to amend.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its denial.
13, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment. (Docket No. 81.) Plaintiff also seeks
reconsideration of this denial.
Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding upon a showing of mistake,
newly discovered evidence, fraud, or "any other reason
that justifies relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); see
Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097,
1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that the catch-all provision
should be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
manifest injustice). It appears that Plaintiff seeks to set
aside the orders based on mistakes by the Court and himself.
for reconsideration "should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances." Antoninetti v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 05-cv-1660-J, 2007 WL
2456223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007). "A motion for
reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation." Life Techs.
Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 11-cv-00703, 2012 WL
10933209, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2012) (quoting Kona
Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890
(9th Cir. 2000)). Moreover, motions to reconsider are not a
platform to relitigate arguments and facts previously
considered and rejected. See Harrison v. Sofamor/Danek
Grp„ Inc., No. 94-cv-0692, 1998 WL 1166044, at *3
(S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 1998).
Denial of Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend
asserts numerous arguments why the Court should reconsider
its denial of his motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. In sum, he argues that he had a right to file his
motion to amend by the scheduling order's deadline for
filing pretrial motions and the Court made a mistake in its
interpretation of the scheduling order's deadlines; that
he could not have amended his complaint before the completion
of discovery; and that Defendants cannot claim prejudice by
the proposed amendment because they attempted to delay the
deposition of proposed defendant Zdunich and "should
have been prepared that Plaintiff would make an amended
complaint." (Docket No. 86.)
Court considers and rejects Plaintiffs arguments. To the
extent Plaintiff argues that the Court rejected his motion
based on untimeliness under the scheduling order, he misreads
the Court's order. The Court did not deny his motion
based on the timeliness of its filing, but rather because it
was filed so late in the litigation and granting the motion
would necessitate the reopening of discovery, thus further
delaying the case. (Docket No. 76.) Second, the Court already
considered Plaintiffs arguments about newly discovered
evidence and potential prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiffs
current arguments offer nothing new and have not shown that
the Court's denial was in error. His contention that
Defendants acted in bad faith by delaying the deposition of
Officer Zdunich could have been raised in his earlier motion.
"A motion for reconsideration cannot be granted merely
because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment, frustrated by
the Court's application of the facts to binding precedent
or because he disagrees with the ultimate decision."
See Moses v. White, No. 13-cv-26105 2013
WL 6795623, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). Therefore,
Plaintiffs Motion to reconsider the Court's denial of his
request to file a third amended complaint is DENIED.
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
argues that the Court should reconsider its denial of his
motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff "made an
error" in how he described Defendant Rodriguez's
description of their encounter, and "his error ...
enables the District Court to rule that Plaintiff was
unreasonably detained by Defendants." (Docket No. 86-2
at 10, 11.) The Court again rejects Plaintiffs argument.
Plaintiff could have raised this issue in his motion for
summary judgment. Assuming the Court can grant relief for
mistake by a party, but see Buford v. Wasco State
Prison, No. 01-cv-05192, 2007 WL 2750684, at *1 (E.D.
Cal. Sept. 19, 2007) (finding that plaintiffs own error is
not grounds to set aside an order under Rule 60), Plaintiff
has neither explained nor presented any legal authority to