ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (#290) requesting relief from Order (#289) filed on April 21, 2011.

Upon considering Seely's arguments, all records on file and the relevant law, the Court finds no basis to reconsider the Court's Order (#289) entered March 22, 2011.

Motions for reconsideration are generally avoided. See, e.g., United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The law of the case doctrine provides that, in order to maintain consistency during the course of a single case, reconsideration of questions previously decided should be avoided."); see also Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that exceptions to the law of the case doctrine include the following: (1) the prior decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice; (2) intervening controlling authority; and (3) substantially different evidence). That notwithstanding, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides that the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reasons that justifies relief.

Plaintiff here has offered no new legal arguments or facts, but simply reasserts the arguments which were previously dismissed by this Court. Plaintiff does not argue the opposing party engaged in fraud. The Court is further not persuaded that it erred in its previous Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Seely's Motion for Reconsideration (#290) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.