Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01720/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01720-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

BARCEL USA, LLC, a Texas limited

liability corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1720 DMS (RBB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 85]

vs.

BAJA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a California

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ objection and motion for rehearing on

Plaintiff’s de-designation and substitution of its expert witness on damages. Plaintiff filed an

opposition to the motion, and Defendants filed a reply.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court

denies Defendants’ motion.

On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for leave to amend the scheduling order

to allow it to de-designate its damages expert and substitute a new expert. Defendants opposed the

motion, but the Court granted Plaintiff the sought-after relief. Thereafter, Defendants filed the present

motion in which they object to the Court’s ruling and request a rehearing. The Court construes this

motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order. 

“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

1

 In their reply, Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s opposition on the ground it is singlespaced in violation of the Civil Local Rules. The Court disagrees that Plaintiff’s opposition is singlespaced, and therefore denies the motion to strike. 

- 1 - 12cv1720

Case 3:12-cv-01720-DMS-RBB Document 133 Filed 12/27/13 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

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendants here have not demonstrated that any of these

conditions apply. Rather, their motion simply rehashes arguments that were or could have been raised

in their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. This is insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s

previous order. See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating 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.”) Accordingly, the Court denies

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2013

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1720

Case 3:12-cv-01720-DMS-RBB Document 133 Filed 12/27/13 Page 2 of 2