(PS) CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION, No. 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-DB (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL 14 ZHIXIANG HU, RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S ORDERS AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S 15 Defendant. RENEWED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 16 (Doc. No. 357) 17

18 ZHIXIANG HU, 19 Counter Claimant, 20 v. 21 CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION, 22 Counter Defendant. 23 24 This matter is before the court on defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for partial reconsideration of 25 the final pretrial order issued in this case. (Doc. No. 357.) Defendant Dr. Hu seeks 26 reconsideration of a portion of the court’s final pretrial order that sustained plaintiff CSPC 27 Dophen’s objections to relief sought by defendant Dr. Hu. (Id.) In addition, he requests that the 28 court reconsider a portion of its March 11, 2024 order which denied his motion to amend the final 1 | pretrial order with respect to relief sought both by plaintiff CSPC Dophen and defendant Dr. Hu 2 | inthis action. Cd.) 3 The court will grant defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for reconsideration in light of his pro se 4 | status and the court’s inherent power to reconsider its own orders. See Credit Suisse First Bos. 5 | Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have long recognized ‘the well- 6 | established rule that a district judge always has power to modify or to overturn an interlocutory 7 | order or decision while it remains interlocutory.’”) (quoting Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, 8 | Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1963)). Nonetheless, having reconsidered both the final pretrial 9 | order and its March 11, 2024 order modifying the final pretrial order in part, and despite 10 | defendant Dr. Hu’s additional clarification provided in the pending motion, the court is 11 | unpersuaded that any modification of the relief sought section of the final pretrial order is 12 || necessary or appropriate. (See Doc. No. 352 at 11 n.5.) Thus, defendant Dr. Hu’s renewed 13 || request to modify the pretrial order with respect to relief sought will be denied. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. Defendant Dr. Hu’s motion for partial reconsideration (Doc. No. 357) of the final 16 pretrial order (Doc. No. 352) and the court’s March 11, 2024 order (Doc. No. 356) 17 is granted; and 18 2. Upon reconsideration, defendant Dr. Hu’s renewed request that the court modify 19 the pretrial order with respect to relief sought is denied. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. *" | Dated: _Mareh 21,2024 Dal A. 2, axel 22 DALE A. DROZD 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28