Dolphynn v. Magnit Global

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

FLEX DOLPHYNN, Civ. No. 6:25-cv-00209-AA

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

vs.

MAGNIT GLOBAL,

Defendant. _______________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge: Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Flex Dolphynn’s Motion for Reconsideration. See ECF No. 21. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order dismissing the case with prejudice. See Opinion & Order, ECF Nos. 18, 20. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) does not provide a test to determine when reconsideration is appropriate, but courts have determined that 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.” Dixon v. Wallowa Cnty., 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Motions for reconsideration are not the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments and are not intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Hernandez v. Jefferson Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, Case No. 3:19-cv-1404-

JR, 2021 WL 2349320, at *1 (D. Or. Feb. 1, 2021) (cleaned up). In addition, a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945. The Court has reviewed the record and given due consideration to Plaintiff’s arguments and finds no cause to revise its earlier ruling.

It is so ORDERED and DATED this _5_t_h_ day of September 2025.

/s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge