Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

21 Citing cases

  1. Golden v. Kipperman (In re Golden)

    Case No.: 20-CV-59 TWR (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    District courts may "reconsider and revise a previous interlocutory decision" at any time before final judgment. Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration "[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part."

  2. Winfield v. Corr. Officers Sigala Gonzalez

    23-CV-783 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2024)

    Rather, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)). And ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court.

  3. Johnson v. O'Malley

    23-CV-481 JLS (AHG) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2024)

    Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citation omitted). So, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)).

  4. Johnson v. O'Malley

    23-CV-481 JLS (AHG) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2024)

    Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citation omitted). So, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)).

  5. Johnson v. Kijakazi

    23-CV-481 JLS (AHG) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    So, “a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988))

  6. Giannini v. Cnty. of Sacramento

    2:21-cv-0581-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2022)

    . However, “[a] district court may reconsider and revise a previous interlocutory decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of controlling law.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003); see also Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (“A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own . . . in any circumstance.”).

  7. Estate of Wilson v. Cnty. of San Diego

    20-cv-0457-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    To determine the merits of a request to reconsider an interlocutory order, courts apply the standard required under a Rule 59(e) reconsideration motion. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003).

  8. Strojnik v. Vill. 1017 Coronado, Inc.

    19-cv-02210-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Courts “should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)). Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court.

  9. Joelson v. United States

    20-CV-1568 TWR (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2021)

    Courts “should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)).

  10. Schmitz v. Asman

    2:20-cv-00195-JAM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    While the Rule 59 and 60 standards for modifying a final judgment provide guidance, “[a] district court may reconsider and revise a previous interlocutory decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of controlling law.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Christianson v. Colt Indus.