Opinion
3:08-CV-125-RCJ(RAM).
August 12, 2010
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Relief from Judgment/Order #158 (#191) filed on February 12, 2010. Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Relief From Judgment or Order (#192) on February 22, 2010.
In this motion, Seely requests relief from judgment in this case, but offers no new legal or factual argument justifying reconsideration. Upon considering Seely's arguments, all records on file and the relevant law, the court finds no basis to reconsider the Courts Order (#158) or Judgment (#159) entered on October 23, 2009.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to reconsider are generally avoided. See e.g., United States v. Mills, 810 F.2d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that "[t]he law of the case doctrine provides that in order to maintain consistency during the course of a single case, reconsideration of questions previously decided should be avoided."); see also Earl Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that exceptions to the law of the case doctrine include the following: (1) the prior decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice; (2) intervening controlling authority; and (3) substantially different evidence). That notwithstanding, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) provides that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. . . ."
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Seely's Motion Requesting Relief from Judgment/Order #158 (#191) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.