Krause v. Krause

Opinion

Michael Krause, No. 1:21-cv-01706-KJM-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER v. Tara Krause, 1S Defendant. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is before the court. Mot., ECF No. 112. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the prior district judge’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Adoption Order, ECF No. 109. Defendant filed a response, which this court construes as an opposition, to plaintiff's motion. Response, ECF No. 116. For the following reasons and for the reasons explained in this court’s previous order granting attorneys’ fees, ECF No. 122, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. Local Rule 230(j) governs motions for reconsideration. In pertinent part, a party seeking reconsideration must: “‘set[ ] forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding [the] motion ...including: what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” L.R. 230G)(3). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted and alteration in original). It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the underlying order is merely “erroneous,” rather than “clearly erroneous.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). “Mere doubts or disagreement about the wisdom of a prior decision . . . will not suffice .... To be clearly erroneous, a decision must ... [be] more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must be dead wrong.” Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., Inc., No. 09-748, 2011 WL 1935967, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011) (quoting Hopwood v. State of Tex., 236 F.3d 256, 273 (Sth Cir. 2000)); see also Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (movant must demonstrate a “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent”). Plaintiff's motion does not include any “new or different facts or circumstances [that] are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3). Instead, the motion attempts to relitigate various parts of the record already addressed in detail by the magistrate judge and previously assigned district judge in her order of adoption. To the extent plaintiff argues the finding and recommendations failed to identify the responsible attorneys and is thereby procedurally flawed, the court disagrees and addressed this argument in its own order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. Order (Apr. 23, 2025) at 7-8, ECF No. 122. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff has not provided justification for the court to depart from the prior order. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 112, is denied. This order resolves ECF No. 112. DATED: May 6, 2025. ot al STATES DISTRICT JUDGE