Marian Anthony v. County of San Diego, et. al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior order that granted Defendants' motion to set aside an entry of default and denied Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court denied the motion, finding that the challenged order was not final and that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate clear error, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration“Plaintiff fails to demonstrate reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the underlying order was interlocutory and thus not subject to Rule 59(e) or 60(b) directly, but properly applied the local rule (LR 7.1.i) and the discretionary standards associated with reconsideration. The court's conclusion that mere disagreement with the factual findings (specifically the 'good cause' analysis under Pioneer) is insufficient for reconsideration is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. The order recites enough of the procedural history and the specific arguments raised to support the conclusion that the Plaintiff did not meet the high bar for reconsideration. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly distinguishes between the applicability of Rules 59(e) and 60(b) to final orders versus the local rule provision for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. It properly applies the discretionary standard for reconsideration and correctly concludes that the plaintiff's arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the court's application of the Pioneer factors, which does not constitute clear error or newly discovered evidence. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a district court order denying reconsideration.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No.: 25-cv-3425-BJC-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et. al., [ECF No. 22] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 22. 20 Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate its order granting Defendants’ motion for extension of 21 time and motion to set aside entry of default, and denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike and 22 motion for default judgment. ECF No. 20. Defendant County of San Diego opposes the 23 motion. ECF No. 25. 24 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) applies to motions to alter or amend a judgment, “in other 26 words, a final order.” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000) 27 (emphasis in original). Rule 60(b) similarly provides relief from judgments, orders, or 28 proceedings that are final. Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 104 (9th Cir. 1958); 1 see also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 816 (9th Cir. 2 2018) (“The word “final” in the Rule designates orders that terminate litigation and are 3 subject to appeal.”). The order Plaintiff challenges is not a final order. As such, Rules 4 59(e) and 60(b) are not applicable. 5 However, a party may apply for reconsideration of an order denying a motion, 6 application, or petition in the Southern District of California. LR 7.1.i. The applicant must 7 provide an affidavit that includes “what new or different facts and circumstances are 8 claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” Id. 9 Courts often utilize the standards of Rules 59(e) and 60(b) when addressing motions for 10 reconsideration. Kroutik v. Rajic, 2025 WL 3558843, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025). A 11 court may grant reconsideration under Rule 59(e), when it is “presented with newly 12 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 13 controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 14 Rule 60 allows for reconsideration for (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 15 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or misrepresentation; (4) the judgment is 16 void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R. 17 CIV. P. 60(b). Reconsideration is left to the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation 18 v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 19 Cir. 2003). 20 Plaintiff claims the Court (1) erred in granting the motion to set aside default against 21 Defendant Dan McCallister who is now deceased, (2) improperly liberally construed 22 Defendants’ motion, and (3)incorrectly determined Defendants did not act with bad faith. 23 Additionally, Plaintiff argues the Court ignores Supreme Court precedent. 24 Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, this Court applied Ninth Circuit and Supreme 25 Court law to determine whether setting aside the entry of default was proper. Specifically, 26 the Court determined the claims against Defendant McAllister are properly treated as an 27 action against the County of San Diego, and the County filed a motion to dismiss on 28 December 23, 2025, in response to the complaint. The Court found good cause to extend 1 || the deadline for serving the motion to dismiss to February 17, 2026, under Federal Rule of 2 || Civil Procedure 6. Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s evaluation of the factors presented 3 ||in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993), in 4 finding Defendants demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline. Disagreement with 5 Court’s order is insufficient to support reconsideration. Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. HT 6 ||& T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate 7 ||reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for 8 || reconsideration. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 29, 2026 11 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28