Benedict v. Google LLC

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Lance M. Benedict, No. CV-23-02392-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Google LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 At issue is pro se Plaintiff Lance M. Benedict’s Motion for Reconsideration and 16 Leave to Amend (Doc. 30), which he brings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) 17 and 60(b) to ask the Court to reconsider its Order (Doc. 27) and Judgment (Doc. 28) 18 granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) and dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended 19 Complaint (Doc. 18) without leave to amend. 20 Generally brought under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) in this District, 21 motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored and should be granted only in rare 22 circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 23 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008) (citing Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. 24 Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)). Disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 25 reconsideration. See id. (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. 26 Haw. 1988 )). Reconsideration is only appropriate if: (1) the court is presented with newly 27 discovered, previously unavailable evidence; (2) the court committed a clear error of law 28 and the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change 1 in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 2 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 Rule 59(e) enables the Court to amend a judgment. “Amending a judgment after its 4 entry remains ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’” Allstate Ins. Co. 5 v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 6 1253 , 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are 7 not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying 8 the motion.” Id. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has defined several grounds on which a 9 Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 10 (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly 11 discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified 12 by an intervening change in controlling law. [13] Id. 14 Lastly, under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order 15 only for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 16 (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 17 party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; 18 or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437 , 1442 19 (9th Cir. 1991). A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “must demonstrate both 20 injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the 21 action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 22 Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). 23 Plaintiff bases his Motion on his belief that, in dismissing the Amended Complaint, 24 the Court erred in not granting him leave to amend. The Court will consider this Motion as 25 one for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.2(g) or to amend the judgment under Rule 26 59(e), but Plaintiff provides insufficient basis for the Court to review the judgment under 27 Rule 60(b). 28 . . . 1 After the Court finds that a complaint fails to state a claim, warranting dismissal, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint if the Court finds the defects in the complaint || can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has carefully reviewed the Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) and its Order (Doc. 27) 5 || dismissing the claims therein, and the Court remains convinced that Plaintiff cannot cure 6 || the fatal defects in his claims by further amendment of the Amended Complaint. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 8 || and Leave to Amend (Doc. 30). This case remains closed. 9 Dated this 16th day of October, 2024. CN 11 wefehlee— Unifgd State#District Judge [28] -3-