Martins v. New West Investment Group
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Brian Martins filed an ex parte application for reconsideration of the court's order striking a document for failure to comply with chambers' rules. The court denied the application, finding no clear error of fact or law and noting that the plaintiff could refile the document in compliance with the rules.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration of Stricken Motion“there is no manifest injustice, and the Court denies his request for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration as cited in Wood v. Ryan, which requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any of these factors and that the remedy of refiling was available, making the denial appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the high bar for reconsideration under Ninth Circuit precedent (Wood v. Ryan) and applies it to the facts, noting the availability of a less drastic remedy (refiling). The reasoning directly addresses the motion with the correct authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN MARTINS, Case No.: 18-cv-01731-AJB-AHG Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 14 NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT RECONSIDERATION OF 15 COMPANY, a California corporation STRICKEN MOTION d/b/a NEW WEST INVESTMENT 16 GROUP, INC., a California corporation, (Doc. No. 144) 17 et al., Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Brian Martins’ (“Plaintiff”) ex parte application for 20 reconsideration. (Doc. No. 144.) Plaintiff seeks the Court’s reconsideration of its decision 21 to strike a filing for failure to comply with chambers’ rules. (Doc. No. 132.) Because 22 Plaintiff presents no clear error of fact or law in the decision, and because the Court’s 23 striking of the document does not prevent Plaintiff from submitting a new filing in 24 accordance with chambers’ rules, there is no manifest injustice, and the Court denies his 25 request for reconsideration.1 See Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) 26 27 1 Plaintiff is free to correct and refile any stricken document, and the Court will accept it so long as the 28 1 ||(reconsideration may be granted “if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, 2 ||committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’’) 3 || (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 3, 2021 | ZS ze Le 6 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28