Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02035/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02035-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joy Garner
Plaintiff
Grrr! Limited
Defendant
Eric S. Pelletier
Defendant
Milton Charles Van Noland
Plaintiff

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

MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND and No. 2:09-cv-02035-MCE-DAD

JOY GARNER,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

ERIC S. PELLETIER and “GRRR!

LIMITED,”

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On February 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’

Motion to Remand and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal. On March 3,

2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that

Order. This Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

by Order filed April 6, 2010. 

Plaintiffs have now filed yet another Motion in this matter,

this time denominated it as a “Motion for Correction”, asking

that the Court “correct” its previous April 6, 2010 Order denying

reconsideration.

///

Case 2:09-cv-02035-MCE -DAD Document 109 Filed 05/12/10 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). 

 Moreover, even were this Court to consider the Motion on 2

its merits, Plaintiffs have still failed to show any newly

discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the

controlling law that would justify reconsideration. School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993); Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in

part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

2

Plaintiffs’ present request is nothing more than a second

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 6, 2010 Order. 

Eastern District Local Rule 303(c), while allowing a party to

seek reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s ruling, does not

authorize repeated attempts to do so (“a party seeking

reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge’s ruling shall file a

Motion for Reconsideration”). The instant Motion (Docket No. 97)

is accordingly DENIED as both unauthorized and cumulative. 1 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02035-MCE -DAD Document 109 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2