Opinion
2:20-cv-02482 WBS AC
10-07-2022
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Defendant.
ORDER RE: SPORTFISHING'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, JUDGE.
Before the court is plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance's (“Sportfishing”) motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 67) of the court's order on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment issued August 29, 2022 (Docket No. 60).
Counsel are cautioned that the court's orders are not intended as tentative rulings but are to be considered as final. A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be used “sparingly in the interests of finality and the conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Sportfishing has not presented any newly discovered evidence, shown clear error or manifest injustice, or pointed to an intervening change in controlling law that would justify reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Mutnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sportfishing's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 67) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.