Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.

21 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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)).

  3. 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)).

  4. 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))

  5. 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.”).

  6. NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. RS Air, LLC (In re RS Air, LLC)

    638 B.R. 403 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that "a debtor need not be maintaining its core or historical operations on the petition date"

    NetJets argues that the bankruptcy court failed to consider new evidence that: (1) RS Air had not reported any income since at least 2004; (2) Perlman's alleged tax benefit flowing from his ownership of RS Air was not a benefit and but rather a loss because the cost of producing the benefit exceeded the amount of the tax benefit itself; (3) the financial model supporting RS Air's income calculations treated expenses as "income," did not comply with GAAP, and was inconsistent with the definition of "disposable income" under the Code; and (4) RS Air's disposable income would be negative using a strict definition of "disposable income." NetJets contends that the bankruptcy court's decision was particularly egregious because the subchapter V designation was an interlocutory ruling. SeeAmarel v. Connell , 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996) (interlocutory orders are subject to modification at any time prior to final judgment); Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F. Supp. 2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (court may reconsider and revise an interlocutory decision for any reason, even absent new evidence or an intervening change in the law). The problem facing NetJets is that all of the alleged new evidence it argues that the bankruptcy court should have considered relates to the fact that RS Air had no net profit.

  7. NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. RS Air, LLC (In re RS Air, LLC)

    BAP NC-21-1227-BGT (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022)

    NetJets contends that the bankruptcy court's decision was particularly egregious because the subchapter V designation was an interlocutory ruling. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996) (interlocutory orders are subject to modification at any time prior to final judgment); Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (court may reconsider and revise an interlocutory decision for any reason, even absent new evidence or an intervening change in the law). The problem facing NetJets is that all of the alleged new evidence it argues that the bankruptcy court should have considered relates to the fact that RS Air had no net profit.

  8. 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).

  9. 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.

  10. 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)).