Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01039/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01039-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HYLTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.11cv1039-GPC(WMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Dkt. No. 174.]

vs.

ANYTIME TOWING;

LIENENFORCEMENT COLLECTION

SERVICES; LIENENFORCEMENT, INC.;

BILLY ANDAL; EMERY ENRIQUEZ;

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

On November 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on November 13, 2012. Based on the

reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Discussion

A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district court is provided with (1) newly

discovered evidence; (2) clear error or manifest injustice, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir. 1993). In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must

include an affidavit or certified statement of a party or attorney “setting forth the material facts and

circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the

- 1 - [11cv1039-GPC(WMC) ]

Case 3:11-cv-01039-GPC-WMC Document 179 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new and

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown upon

such prior application.” Local Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1). 

Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of the Court’s order grantingDefendants’ motion for summary

judgment and seeks leave to file an amended complaint to include evidence and parties discovered

since the submission of his motion to amend the complaint filed in September 2011. He claims that

his first amended complaint has never been filed as it was rejected by the Court on a discrepancy on

April 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 59.) Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Anytime Towing filed a late

answer without showing good cause. Lastly, Plaintiff also attempts to reargue his claims against

Defendants.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted. 

Plaintiff must show that there was newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an

intervening change in controlling law since the filings of the motions for summary judgment. See

School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Here, Plaintiff complains of issues that existed since the early

stages of the case back in 2011. The Court also notes that a First Amended Complaint was filed on

March 26, 2012. Therefore, his attempt to file another First Amended Complaint was rejected on

discrepancy on April 19, 2012. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 28, 2012

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - [11cv1039-GPC(WMC) ]

Case 3:11-cv-01039-GPC-WMC Document 179 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 2