Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. 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.”).

  2. 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).

  3. 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)).

  4. 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.

  5. 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).