Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01068-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

30

31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE BUDWIG, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC and DOES 1 to 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-01068-LJO-EPG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

MOTION TO CONTINUE

(ECF No. 44)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to reconsider its order granting in part and denying in part 

Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44; 

see ECF Nos. 39, 43.) The motion was filed on Friday, March 13, 2020. Defendant opposes the request

for reconsideration. (ECF No. 45.)

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 

intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “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.” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Case 1:18-cv-01068-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 3
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

30

31

Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. Plaintiff cites to the declaration of a 

national emergency due to the Coronavirus outbreak, declarations by the State of California regarding the 

virus, the closure of additional schools, various advisory precautions issued by government agencies 

seeking to slow the spread of the virus, and that Plaintiff’s counsel has been fighting a cold and also has 

asthma and is over 60 years of age. The Court agrees that the Coronavirus outbreak is a serious health 

issue. However, again, Plaintiff’s counsel has not indicated that he has COVID-19, or that he has been 

exposed to the virus, nor has he indicated that he has been personally affected by any other disruptions

caused by the Coronavirus outbreak. Plaintiff’s counsel also does not describe how electronically filing 

an opposition brief increases any risk to his health.

Plaintiff’s opposition was initially due on March 13, 2020. Thus, as noted previously, when 

Plaintiff’s counsel sought a continuance late in the evening on March 11, the opposition was presumably 

nearly finished given that it was due only two days later. Plaintiff had Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment for more than three weeks by that time. Additionally, the Court has already granted Plaintiff a 

brief extension to file his brief given the concerns raised in Plaintiff’s original request.

Since the Court issued its order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion for a 

continuance, Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a request for reconsideration, and two different reply briefs in 

support of reconsideration, demonstrating that Plaintiff has the ability and time to draft and file briefs. 

Indeed, over the last four days, Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed six separate briefs on the issue of the 

deadline for the opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel clearly has the ability to prepare and file briefs with the 

Court. 

The Court does not find the circumstances at issue here warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff has not 

provided the Court with newly discovered evidence justifying a further extension of time. Plaintiff also 

has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error in granting in part and denying in part 

Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. Finally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that filing the opposition 

brief in the additional time already provided would put Plaintiff’s counsel at greater health risk. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has the ability and indeed is required to file the opposition brief electronically and also 

may appear at the hearing telephonically.

\\\

Case 1:18-cv-01068-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 3
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

30

31

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration of the Court’s previous 

order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s request for a continuance. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (ECF No. 44) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01068-EPG Document 48 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3