ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Charles Barker III’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“Motion for Reconsideration”), filed on November 5, 2014. [Dkt. no. 104.] Defendants Joshua L. Gottlieb, Jonathan Dubowsky, Donald Borneman, Charles Hall, Scott Harris, the Value Exchange Advisors, and GEMCo-Pacific Energy LLC (collectively “Defendants”) filed their memorandum in opposition on December 19, 2014. [Dkt. no. 112.] The Court has considered the instant Motion for Reconsideration as a non-hearing matter pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of the motion, opposing memorandum, and relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
The parties and the Court are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this case, and this Order will only discuss the events that are relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration.
On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. [Dkt. no. 89.] On July 15, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 94.] On October 24, 2014, this Court issued its order granting the Motion to Dismiss (“10/24/14 Dismissal Order”) and dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. [Dkt. no. 102.]
In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the 10/24/14 Dismissal Order. Plaintiff argues that: dismissal of his Third Amended Complaint violated his constitutional right to a trial; Defendants refused to produce discovery relevant to Plaintiff’s claims; Defendants and/or their counsel committed perjury in order to avoid disclosing discovery; and each of his claims is valid.
This Court has described the standard applicable to a motion for reconsideration as follows:
A motion for reconsideration must (1) “demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and (2) “must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Hele Ku KB, LLC v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 873 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1289 (D. Haw. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has held that reconsideration is appropriate if (1) the district court is presented with “newly discovered evidence,” (2) the district court “committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or (3) “if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004).
Terry v. Hawaii Air Nat’l Guard, Civil No. 13–00295 LEK–RLP, 2014 WL 5089179, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Oct. 8, 2014) (citation omitted).
I. Right to Trial
Plaintiff argues that the dismissal of his case violated his right to a trial, and he argues that:
Motions to dismiss, for summary judgment and on the pleadings are not “efficient” disposals of civil cases; in fact, they may actually consume more of the Court’s time and attention than merely ordering that discovery be conducted and completed prior to the hearing in court, all relevant evidence be then prepared for presentation, and a real hearing with live testimony from witnesses conducted on the essential matters of the ...