(PS) Narayan v. USAA Ins. Co.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRAKASH NARAYAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02256-WBS-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 10) 14 USAA INSURANCE CO., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Prakash 18 Narayan on October 4, 2024. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of 19 Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to 20 file objections to Judge Kim’s August 27, 2024 Findings and Recommendations. Id. This 21 action was closed on October 3, 2024. (ECF No. 9.) 22 A court may properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly 23 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 24 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Smith v. Clark Cnty. 25 Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). The choice to reconsider an order is left to 26 the discretion of the court. See id. “A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts 27 or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” 28 Brookins v. Hernandez, 2020 WL 1923211, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020); see also 1 | Local Rule 230(j) (requiring a party seeking reconsideration to show “what new or 2 | different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 3 | shown upon such prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion”). Here, Plaintiff 4 | presents no new or different facts or circumstances “of a strongly convincing nature” that 5 | did not exist when he filed his motion for extension of time in September 10, 2024. 6 | Brookins, 2020 WL 1923211, at *1. Nor has Plaintiff met the clear error, manifest 7 | injustice, or intervening change in the law standards. See Smith, 727 F.3d at 955. Thus, 8 | having reviewed Plaintiff's motion, the Court does not find that reconsideration is 9 | warranted. 10 Accordingly, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 11 || (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. 12 | Dated: April 4, 2025 eh bhem~ (ht. ~E— 43 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28