Opinion
20-cv-06185-HSG
10-13-2023
NING XIANHUA, Plaintiff, v. OATH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE: DKT. NO. 89
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ning Xianhua's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Civil L.R. 7-9. Dkt. No. 89. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its order denying Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, Dkt. No. 88, based on newly discovered evidence and a change in law. See Dkt. No. 89; Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion in detail, the Court finds that he offers no newly discovered evidence or change in law warranting reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (requiring “reasonable diligence” in bringing the motion and a showing that “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”). Rather, Plaintiff repeats arguments that he raised in his prior motion and that the Court already rejected. See Civil L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of . . . the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.”).
In short, there is no basis for reconsideration, and the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.