Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 7 AUDREY L. KIMNER, 8 Case No. 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

CAPITAL TITLE OF TEXAS, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendants.

sa. 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Audrey Kimner’s motion for reconsideration.’ Plaintiff asks

14 this Court to reconsider its March 2020 order, which dismissed Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. © 3 15 || See Dkt. 16. Plaintiff subsequently appealed that order.” Dkt. 17. 16 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if the district court

17 (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

18 was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. See, e.g., School 19 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion 20 for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when 21 they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 22 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 24 ' In this District, parties must first file a motion for /eave to file a motion for reconsideration. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiff Kimner only filed a motion for reconsideration. Given 25 Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court interprets Plaintiffs motion as asking for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (discussing the lower 26 standard for pro se plaintiffs, namely that they are held to “less stringent standards” with respect to leadings). 27 PThis ground alone prevents the Court from granting Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a) (requiring the motion to be brought before entry of judgment). 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1 Plaintiff presents the Court with evidence that she had in her possession when she 2 originally filed her motion. She argues that this evidence shows that her claims are meritorious. 3 Even ignoring the other problems with Plaintiff's Complaint, see Dkts. 13, 14, 15, this evidence is 4 not “newly discovered” and so it does not create cause reconsideration. Accordingly, □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 7 Dated: June 25, 2020 8 EDWARD J. DAVILA 9 United States District Judge 10 11

2B 14

(«17

2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION