ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi") seeks reconsideration of the court's August 26, 2016 Order denying its motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages based exclusively on the court's "inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment." (Citi's Mem. at 3:16-20.) Citi argues that the court failed to consider the evidence "through the prism" of the clear and convincing evidentiary burden that governs punitive damages. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986) ("[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.").

The court was well aware that a jury could award punitive damages only upon finding that the plaintiffs established oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence. (See Aug. 26, 2016 Order at 30:14-19 ("Pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages `[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.'" (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a))).) The court applied the correct standard and, even assuming the court had power to reconsider its prior order, it sees no reason to do so.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citi's motion for reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and the hearing set for October 17, 2016 on that motion is VACATED.