Juan Pablo Chavez v. Marko Rodin

Case 2:18-cv-01232-CAS-GJS Document9 Filed 09/01/22 Pagelof2 Page ID #:36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:18-cv-01232-CAS (GJSx) Date September 1, 2022 Title JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ V. MARKO RODIN, ET AL. Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKt. 8, filed on AUGUST 22, 2022) On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez filed a civil action against Marko Rodin, Lisa Marie Wilson, Sedona Charter School, and One Lotus, LLC. Dkt. 1. According to plaintiff, the action is for breach of contract, personal property damages, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, fraud, libel, unconstitutionality of a state statute, and tort. Id. at 1. On February 21, 2018, this Court transferred the case to the District of Arizona upon finding that venue was improper in the Central District of California. Dkt. 6. On August 22, 2022, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration. Dkt. 8. In this judicial district, [a] motion for reconsideration of an Order on any motion or application may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the Order was entered, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before the Order was entered. No motion for reconsideration may in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of, or in opposition to, the original motion. Absent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration must be filed no later than 14 days after entry of the Order that is the subject of the motion or application. CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 2:18-cv-01232-CAS-GJS Document9 Filed 09/01/22 Page2of2 Page 1ID#:37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘0’ Case No. 2:18-cv-01232-CAS (GJSx) Date September 1, 2022 Title JUAN PABLO CHAVEZ V. MARKO RODIN, ET AL. C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-18; see also Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Reconsideration is indicated in the face of the existence of new evidence, an intervening change in the law, or as necessary to prevent manifest injustice.”). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation, 331 F.3d at 1046 . Plaintiff's request for reconsideration does not specify the order of which plaintiff seeks reconsideration, nor does it provide any basis for reconsideration. Dkt. 8. The request solely comprises a list of docket numbers for cases not before this Court, including cases in other judicial districts. Id. To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of a decision made by the transferee court in the District of Arizona, this Court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's request. See dkt. 6. The Court also cannot reconsider decisions in the cases plaintiff lists that are not before this Court. To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the transfer order, plaintiff has not provided the Court with any grounds to reconsider the proper venue. Furthermore, plaintiff filed his request over four years after entry of the transfer order, far exceeding the 14-day deadline in the Local Rules. Nothing in plaintiff's request demonstrates good cause for this delay. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiff's request WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer OM CV-90 (10/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2