Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00418-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Petitioner
James W. Witt
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES W. WITT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF NO. 15)

On June 3, 2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued Findings and 

Recommendations (“F&Rs”) recommending that Plaintiff United States of America’s 

(“Petitioner”) petition to enforce IRS summons be granted. (ECF No. 8.) The F&Rs contained 

notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. Respondent James W. 

Witt (“Respondent”) filed objections on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) On July 6, 2015, this 

Court issued an Order Adopting the F&Rs (ECF No. 11), followed on July 14, 2015 by an 

Amended Order Adopting the F&Rs (ECF No. 14). On July 20, 2015, Respondent filed a request 

for reconsideration. (ECF No. 15). 

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.

1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick 

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 

Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing 

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on 

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local 

Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist 

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 

Case 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 07/31/15 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

2

the motion.” L.R. 230(j). “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.” Marlyn 

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

quotations marks and citations omitted. “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision,” and cannot satisfy its burden by “recapitulate[ing] the 

cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision.” United 

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

Here, Respondent’s request for reconsideration merely restates arguments (e.g., that the 

IRS has no jurisdiction to investigate Respondent) that were previously raised and rejected.

Therefore, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00418-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 2