Martins v. New West Investment Group

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