Opinion ID: 3037822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: continental’s cross-appeal

Text: Because Continental later discovered the sender’s copies of waybills 3045 and 3137, which omitted the cargoes’ weight, Continental requested that the district court revisit its grant of summary judgment as to waybills 3045 and 3137 and “apply the same rule . . . that it later applied to waybills Nos. 3056 and 3067.” The district court declined, noting this evidence CONTINENTAL INSURANCE v. FEDERAL EXPRESS 7167 was available earlier, and the failure to present it was an oversight. On cross-appeal, Continental challenges the district court’s refusal to harmonize its two rulings. This type of oversight does not ordinarily meet the criteria for granting a motion for reconsideration. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7.16. Furthermore, because we have held that The Hague Protocol governs all four waybills, the issue becomes moot. We deny Continental’s cross-appeal.