Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

7 Citing cases

  1. 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)).

  2. 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))

  3. 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.”).

  4. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. Schmitz v. Asman

    2:20-cv-00195-JAM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    While these standards 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); 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 or of a coordinate court in any circumstance.”). And some courts apply a less rigid standard for motions to revise interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b) than to motions to reconsider final judgments under Rule 60(b).

  7. Hadsell v. Cach, LLC

    Civil No. 12-cv-0235-L-RBB (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Although a district court may reconsider its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, generally a motion for reconsideration "is appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993); see also Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (Whelan, J.). Clear error occurs when "the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."