Suderman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-5163-MLP 10 v. ORDER SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 59(e). (Dkt. # 18.) After reviewing the motion and the remainder of the record, 16 the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. # 18) as explained below. 17 A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “offers an 18 extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial 19 resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and 20 quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration [under Rule 59(e)] should not 21 be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 22 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 23 law.’” Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “A 1 motion for reconsideration may not be used to get a second bite at the apple.” Campion v. Old 2 Republic Home Protection Co., Inc., 2011 WL 1935967, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011). 3 In this case, Plaintiff’s motion reiterates and expands upon the briefing already presented, 4 and explains why Plaintiff continues to believe that the Commissioner’s decision was erroneous. 5 (Dkt. # 18.) Plaintiff’s claim of clear error notwithstanding, this disagreement does not

6 demonstrate clear error. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion (dkt. # 18) is DENIED. 7 Dated this 6th day of November, 2019. 8 9 A United States Magistrate Judge 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23