Opinion
No. CV 08-1421-AC.
July 20, 2010
OPINION ORDER
On July 16, 2010, I adopted Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#188) in the above-captioned case and I granted defendant U.S. Bank's Motion for Sanctions (#100), Second Motion for Sanctions (#109), and Third Motion for Sanctions (#155). In response to that Order, plaintiff Roberta Kelly filed a Rejection (#206) along with a declaration requesting that I vacate the Opinion Order (#202). I construe the Rejection as a motion for reconsideration and I review it accordingly.
DISCUSSION
Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate "if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).
Ms. Kelly does not present new evidence or argue that an intervening change in the law warrants a different decision. Ms. Kelly presumably bases her motion on an argument that this Court committed clear error or made a manifestly unjust decision. I do not find any facts or law to support such a contention. Therefore, Ms. Kelly's Rejection (#206), construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.