NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

ROBERT N. KWAN, Bankruptcy Jydge.

Pending before the court is the original and supplemental motions of Plaintiff Mattie Belinda Evans for reconsideration of the court's decision and order denying her motion to remand, Electronic Filing Numbers ("ECF") 18 and 19, filed on February 6 and 8, 2017. A hearing on the motions for reconsideration was conducted on February 21, 2017. Plaintiff, who is self-represented, appeared for herself. David J. Richardson, of the law firm of SulmeyerKupetz, appeared for Defendants Alan G. Tippie, et al. After hearing from the parties on February 21, 2017, the court took the reconsideration motions under submission.

The motions for reconsideration are contested matters within the meaning of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure do not expressly authorize a motion for reconsideration, "the [trial] court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders prior to the entry of judgment." See 3 Wagstaffe, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 12:158 at 12-67 (2016), quoting, Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 475 (2005). However, reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly," and absent highly unusual circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will not be granted "unless the [trial] court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 3 Wagstaffe, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 12:158 at 12-67 (2016), quoting, Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Similarly, Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-4 applies to contested matters, and the grounds for a new trial or hearing, or reconsideration of an order, under this rule include errors of law at trial, insufficiency of evidence or newly discovered evidence.

Under these legal standards, Plaintiff has not shown by her reconsideration motions that reconsideration of the court's order is appropriate here since there is no demonstration that the court, in denying her motion to remand, committed any error of law, that movant is presenting newly discovered evidence or that there is an intervening change in the controlling law. In her reconsideration motions, Plaintiff simply reargues the grounds for her motion to remand that the court considered in the first place, that the court does not have jurisdiction over the state court action removed by Defendants to this court, and as set forth in the court's memorandum decision and order, ECF 15, the motion to remand was properly denied because the court has "related to" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the court is not deprived of jurisdiction under Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1065-1069 (2013) because the Supreme Court in that case only held that the legal malpractice claim arising out of a federal patent case was not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, and not that the federal courts had no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of the court's memorandum decision and order denying her motion to remand the removed state court action and orders that Plaintiff may not file and may not serve another motion for reconsideration of the memorandum decision and order denying her motion to remand without obtaining prior authorization of the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.