Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00564/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00564-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

VIRGIL POPESCU,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13CV564 BEN (JLB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 38]

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

On September 22, 2014, Plaintiffsubmitted a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Docket No.

38.) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

“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 intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff has not identified any new evidence or new law. He identifies no new

evidence and the cases he cites are not recent. He simply repeats arguments previously

made and requests oral argument because he believes the Court may only consider the

merits of his argument in person. However, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an

opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by the court, nor is it an

- 1 - 13cv564

Case 3:13-cv-00564-BEN-JLB Document 39 Filed 10/01/14 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

opportunity for a party to re-argue a motion because it is dissatisfied with the original

outcome.” FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 2009 WL 56130, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009) (quoting

Devinsky v. Kingsford, 2008 WL 2704338, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2008)). To the

extent Plaintiff is arguing the Court committed clear error, the Court disagrees. “Clear

error occurs when the ‘reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.,

727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court finds no clear error.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). 

Under 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration of an order “[w]henever any

motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any

judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” The moving party must provide the

court with an affidavit setting forth “what new or different facts and circumstances are

claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown” and the motion “must be filed

within twenty-eight days after the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be

reconsidered.” CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(i)(1)-(2). Although Plaintiff submitted an

affidavit, it did not identify any new facts or circumstances the Court should consider

and Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within 28 days of the Court’s ruling.

1

Because Plaintiff has not identified any new law, new evidence, or clear error in

the Court’s prior decision, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The October

20, 2014 hearing date is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

The Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss was filed on August 21, 2014 1

and Plaintiff’s motion was not filed until September 22, 2014. Plaintiff’s motion was

not only untimely by the date he filed it, but also by the date he signed it, September

21, 2014.

- 2 - 13cv564

Case 3:13-cv-00564-BEN-JLB Document 39 Filed 10/01/14 Page 2 of 2