Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNETH LAWRENCE LENK, Case No. 20-cv-08094-BLF (HSG)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 73 10 MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 59(e). See Dkt. No. 73. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior order 15 denying his motion to disqualify United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman from the 16 above-captioned case. Id. 17 A party may move to alter or amend a judgment no later than 28 days after the entry of 18 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to reconsider or amend a previous order under Rule 19 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly . . . .” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of 20 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for 21 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 22 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 23 intervening change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th 24 Cir. 1999). “[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the 25 motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). 26 Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet the high standard required to warrant reconsideration 27 under Rule 59(e). He argues that the Court did not consider all the alleged facts in denying the 1 the evidence he presented. Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s conclusions, but that is not a 2 basis for reconsideration. See Campbell v. City of Milpitas, No. 13-CV-03817-BLF, 2015 WL 3 3396809, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2015) (“At the end of the day, Plaintiffs simply disagree with 4 || the Court’s legal analysis, which is not an appropriate basis for seeking reconsideration.”). 5 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 |} Dated: 11/2/2022 g Alegre 3 Sb). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28