Marian Anthony, Jasmine Johanesen v. County of San Diego, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of two December 3, 2025 orders entered by the district judge, which the Court construed as a motion under Rule 59(e). The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and denied the requests to amend the complaint and for early discovery as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the December 3, 2025 Orders“Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the December 3 Orders.” | agree with court The Court correctly identified that Rule 72(a) does not apply to orders entered by a district judge and properly construed the motion as one for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The Court applied the Ninth Circuit standard for reconsideration, noting that the plaintiffs merely repeated arguments previously raised and failed to present newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. The denial is consistent with the law and the record recited in the order. |
Denial of Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Amend Complaint and Early Discovery“The Court has previously ruled these requests, (ECF No. 52), and therefore DENIES both requests as moot.” | agree with court The Court states that it has previously ruled on these specific requests in a prior order (ECF No. 52). Denying them as moot is a standard procedural mechanism when a court has already adjudicated the merits of a request. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural vehicle for the motion (Rule 59(e) rather than Rule 72(a)) and applies the correct Ninth Circuit standards for reconsideration. It addresses the plaintiffs' arguments by noting they are repetitive and fail to meet the high bar for reconsideration. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE 11 JOHANESEN, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. OF DECEMBER 3, 2025 ORDERS 13 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 [ECF No. 46] Defendants. 15 16 The Court entered two Orders on December 3, 2025 (“December 3 Orders”). (See 17 ECF Nos. 43, 44.) Plaintiffs now object to the Orders under Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 72(a). (See Mot., ECF No. 46.) In an abundance of caution, the Court construes 19 Plaintiffs’ “objections” as a motion for reconsideration under Rules 72(a) and 59(e).1 20 Under Rule 72(a), a district court judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling 21 on a non-dispositive motion only “where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is 22 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 23 24 25 1 It appears Plaintiffs challenge only some of the rulings in the December 3 Orders. (See Mot. 2.) In an 26 abundance of caution, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of all rulings across both Orders. Plaintiffs also erroneously request reconsideration of rulings not at issue in these Orders (for 27 example, “recusal of Judge Dana M. Sabraw” and “reconsideration of the October 8, 2025 Order”). (Id.) Further, the Court already considered and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal of the undersigned and 28 1 Here, the December 3 Orders were entered by the undersigned—a district court judge. Rule 2 72(a) does not provide for review of a district judge’s ruling. Thus, this argument is 3 procedurally improper. 4 A motion for reconsideration may be construed as a motion to amend judgment 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).2 See In re Arrowhead Estates Development 6 Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 7 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 8 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 9 law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 10 Cir. 1993). “Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.” 11 Smith v. Shartle, No. CV-18-00323, 2019 WL 5653444, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2019) 12 (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or 13 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 14 the litigation.” Id. (citation omitted). “Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any 15 argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion.” Id. (citation 16 omitted). Here, Plaintiffs repeat many of the same arguments already raised in their 17 previous motions, contending the Court overlooked or disregarded Plaintiffs’ evidence. 18 Not so. Rather, the Court considered these arguments when entering the December 3 19 Orders, but found none to be persuasive. A motion for reconsideration need not be granted 20 if it asks the district court merely “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through 21 – rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiffs raise no additional, 22 compelling reasons why the Court should amend its December 3 Orders. 23 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for 24 reconsideration of the December 3 Orders. Plaintiffs also request leave to amend their 25 26 2 Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for reconsideration. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(i). Under Local Rule 27 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” Id. 28 1 ||Complaint and early discovery. (Mot., Prayer for Relief.) The Court has previously ruled 2 these requests, (ECF No. 52), and therefore DENIES both requests as moot. 3 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: January 20, 2026 2» ; Jorn Yn - L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28