Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

21 Citing cases

  1. Federal Trade Commission v. Neovi, Inc.

    06-CV-1952-JLS (JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009)

    Generally, courts will reconsider a decision if a party can show (1) new facts, (2) new law, or (3) clear error in the Court's prior decision. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp. , 306 F.Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D.Cal. 2003). Ultimately, the decision on a motion for reconsideration lies in the Court's sound discretion.

  2. D.H. v. Poway Unified School District

    Civil No. 09-cv-2621-L(NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014)

    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."

  3. 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."

  4. De La Riva Construction, Inc. v. Marcon Engineering, Inc.

    NO. 11-CV-52-MMA (DHB) (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    "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). "However, a court should generally leave a previous decision undisturbed absent a showing that it either represented clear error or would work a manifest injustice."

  5. Egan v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Case No. 14-cv-2466-BAS(WVG) (S.D. Cal. May. 11, 2016)

    To determine whether reconsideration is warranted under Rule 54(b), the Court applies the Rule 59(e) reconsideration standard. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (Whelan, J.).

  6. Davis v. O'Connor

    Case No. 18-cv-2824-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. May. 28, 2019)   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). Reconsideration is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if: (1) the district court "is presented with newly discovered evidence," (2) the district court "committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust," or (3) "there is an intervening change in controlling law."

  7. United States v. RAJMP, Inc.

    Case No.: 17-cv-00515-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019)

    see also Beal v. Royal Oak Bar, No. 13-cv-04911-LB, 2016 WL 3230887, at * 1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016); In re: Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 13md2452 AJB (MDD), 2014 WL 12539702, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. C 12-00865 SI, 2014 WL 4076319, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014); Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003). However, a motion for reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources."

  8. Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. FPS Food Process Sols.

    Case No: 1:17-cv-00519-DCN (D. Idaho Jun. 1, 2020)   Cited 17 times

    (citing Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmBH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)); United States v. Lewis, 2018 WL 1014172, at *2 (D. Or. 2018) (denying reconsideration of interlocutory order because "a motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation") (quoting Kona, 228 F.3d at 883) (emphasis in original); HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 11234136, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ("To determine the merits of a request to reconsider an interlocutory order, the court applies the standard required under a Rule 59(e) reconsideration motion.") (citing Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003)); Rich v. TASER Intern., Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1094 (D. Nev. 2013) (holding reconsideration of a non-final order may be appropriate if the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law).

  9. 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."

  10. 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).