(CONSENT)(PS) Hoeft v. Ballon, 2:16-cv-02615 CKD (PS). (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171130d38
Visitors: 22
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . On October 3, 2017, the undersigned granted defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) Before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendant has not filed a response. A district court 1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, In
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . On October 3, 2017, the undersigned granted defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) Before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendant has not filed a response. A district court 1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
On October 3, 2017, the undersigned granted defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 49.) Before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendant has not filed a response.
A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id. at 1263. Here, the court's decision to dismiss this action with prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors apply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51) is denied.
FootNotes
1. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 20.)
Source: Leagle
