Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA

C.D. California

Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA

DecidedOctober 21, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-11591

StatusUnknown

This text of Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA (Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} RONALD G. ROBINSON, Case No. 2:20-11591 CAS (ADS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF 14 || GENERAL MANAGER OF CALPIA, et al., | MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. 16 17 | I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald G. Robinson’s Objection to Court’s Order 19 || Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 20 || “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 64.) On September 16, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion 21 || for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 59, 51, 22 || respectively.) Having reviewed the Motion, the relevant legal authority, and the relevant 23 || pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion. 24

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The Court construes the Motion as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 3 7-18. See Borsotti v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. CV 17-7193-DMG (JCx), 2018 WL 4 6252457, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (construing pro se plaintiff’s objection the district 5 judge’s order as a motion for reconsideration). A court may reconsider its own order.

6 See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Reconsideration of a court's order is an extraordinary remedy 7 and should be used sparingly. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 8 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this district, motions for reconsideration are governed by Local 9 Rule 7-18, which states: ‘[a] motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion 10 may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that 11 presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 12 could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such 13 decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after 14 the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts 15 presented to the Court before such decision.’” Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. CMG 16 Worldwide, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-

17 18); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Furthermore, “[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in 18 any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to 19 the original motion,” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18, and “a motion for reconsideration may not be 20 made on the grounds that a party disagrees with the Court's application of legal 21 precedent,” Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 968, 981 22 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Finally, “[w]hether to grant a motion for reconsideration under Local 23 Rule 7-18 is a matter within the court's discretion.” Milton H. Greene, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 24 1162. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff argues the Court erred in denying his original motion for a temporary 3 || restraining order and preliminary injunction because the relief sought in the motion and 4 || the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are related. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2- 5 ||3.) He contends the injuries alleged in the original motion “are a continuation of the 6 || due process and speech suppression” issues raised in the FAC. (Id.) Plaintiff also 7 || argues, without supporting details, that he is entitled to a temporary restraining order 8 || and preliminary injunction because he is likely to succeed on the merits, suffer 9 || irreparable harm with an injunction, and suffer hardship without an injunction. (Id. at 10 || 4-5.) 11 The Court finds these arguments unavailing. First, Plaintiff does not raise a 12 || material difference in fact or law that could not have been known to Plaintiff when he 13 || filed the original motion. Second, Plaintiff offers no new material facts or law that 14 ||emerged after the Court’s prior order. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court did 15 || not previously consider material facts related to the motion. For all these reasons, these 16 || arguments do not compel reconsideration. 17 ||IV. CONCLUSION 18 The Court denies Plaintiffs Motion. (Dkt. No. 64.) 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘4% Motus Uh byt 20 || Dated: October 21, 2021 THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 21 United States District Judge Presented by: 22 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth 23 |) THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} RONALD G. ROBINSON, Case No. 2:20-11591 CAS (ADS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF 14 || GENERAL MANAGER OF CALPIA, et al., | MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 Defendants. 16 17 | I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ronald G. Robinson’s Objection to Court’s Order 19 || Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 20 || “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 64.) On September 16, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion 21 || for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 59, 51, 22 || respectively.) Having reviewed the Motion, the relevant legal authority, and the relevant 23 || pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion. 24

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The Court construes the Motion as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 3 7-18. See Borsotti v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. CV 17-7193-DMG (JCx), 2018 WL 4 6252457, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (construing pro se plaintiff’s objection the district 5 judge’s order as a motion for reconsideration). A court may reconsider its own order.

6 See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Reconsideration of a court's order is an extraordinary remedy 7 and should be used sparingly. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 8 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this district, motions for reconsideration are governed by Local 9 Rule 7-18, which states: ‘[a] motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion 10 may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that 11 presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 12 could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such 13 decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after 14 the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts 15 presented to the Court before such decision.’” Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. CMG 16 Worldwide, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-

17 18); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Furthermore, “[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in 18 any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to 19 the original motion,” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18, and “a motion for reconsideration may not be 20 made on the grounds that a party disagrees with the Court's application of legal 21 precedent,” Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 968, 981 22 (C.D. Cal. 2004). Finally, “[w]hether to grant a motion for reconsideration under Local 23 Rule 7-18 is a matter within the court's discretion.” Milton H. Greene, 568 F. Supp. 2d at 24 1162. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff argues the Court erred in denying his original motion for a temporary 3 || restraining order and preliminary injunction because the relief sought in the motion and 4 || the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are related. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2- 5 ||3.) He contends the injuries alleged in the original motion “are a continuation of the 6 || due process and speech suppression” issues raised in the FAC. (Id.) Plaintiff also 7 || argues, without supporting details, that he is entitled to a temporary restraining order 8 || and preliminary injunction because he is likely to succeed on the merits, suffer 9 || irreparable harm with an injunction, and suffer hardship without an injunction. (Id. at 10 || 4-5.) 11 The Court finds these arguments unavailing. First, Plaintiff does not raise a 12 || material difference in fact or law that could not have been known to Plaintiff when he 13 || filed the original motion. Second, Plaintiff offers no new material facts or law that 14 ||emerged after the Court’s prior order. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court did 15 || not previously consider material facts related to the motion. For all these reasons, these 16 || arguments do not compel reconsideration. 17 ||IV. CONCLUSION 18 The Court denies Plaintiffs Motion. (Dkt. No. 64.) 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘4% Motus Uh byt 20 || Dated: October 21, 2021 THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 21 United States District Judge Presented by: 22 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth 23 |) THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronald Gene Robinson v. General Manager of CALPIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-gene-robinson-v-general-manager-of-calpia-cacd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack