Dolores Lucero v. Philip Lewis

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff Dolores Lucero’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order adopting findings and recommendations. The court held that although the motion was timely, Plaintiff identified no new evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law, and the case remains closed.

Holdings

1. The motion for reconsideration was timely because judgment was entered on September 18, 2025, and plaintiff filed the motion on October 1, 2025.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration because she identified no qualifying basis for relief and merely repeated arguments that had already been presented and rejected.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's motion for reconsideration satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 230(j).
2. Whether plaintiff established manifest error, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or another valid basis requiring reconsideration.

Disposition

other