ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

Plaintiff ArchitectureArt, LLC ("AArt") brings this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the Court to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 54) granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant City of San Diego ("City"). The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1).

A district court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless: (1) it is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) it committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there was an intervening change in controlling law. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (citing Kona Enterprise, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). "There may also be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quotations omitted).

In this case, AArt does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law. Instead, making the same arguments it did in the Motion for Summary Judgment, it essentially argues the Court was wrong in its decision. This is an insufficient basis upon which to grant a motion for reconsideration. Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721-GPC-BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (explaining that a motion for reconsideration will be denied where the motion reflects the same arguments, facts and case law that were previously considered and ruled upon by the court); Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:12-cv-501 KJM CKD, 2013 WL 3242249, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) ("[A] motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle for rehashing arguments the court has already considered.") (citation omitted). After reviewing the Motion, the Court finds there are no unusual circumstances or clear error in the initial decision. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF No. 59.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.