Opinion
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-1298-GPC-MDD
04-20-2015
RONALD MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. R. MADDEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
[ECF No. 76]
On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez's ("Plaintiff") filed an "Objection to the Courts [sic] Order Denying Motion to Enforce Settlement." (ECF No. 76.) The Court construes this as a motion to reconsider. As Plaintiff has failed to show that reconsideration is warranted, see Marlyn Natraceuticals,Inc. v.Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989), Plaintiff's motion to reconsider is DENIED. However, as Plaintiff declares that he has not received a copy of the executed settlement agreement, though Defendants R. Madden and A.B. Gervin ("Defendants") declare it has been sent, the Court does find it appropriate to direct Defendants to send Plaintiff a copy of the executed settlement, on or before May 1, 2015.
The Court does not generally entertain objections to its orders unless the order specifically so allows. However, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 do allow parties to file motions for reconsideration. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59, 60.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 20, 2015
/s/_________
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge