Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on various filings made by Plaintiff. Dkts. #48-#49, #52-#59, and #63-#65. 1 On February 14, 2019, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's action and denying him leave to amend his complaint and entered a judgment in conformance with that order. Dkts. #43 and #44. Plaintiff subsequently filed approximately 200 pages across these largely dupli
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on various filings made by Plaintiff. Dkts. #48-#49, #52-#59, and #63-#65. 1 On February 14, 2019, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's action and denying him leave to amend his complaint and entered a judgment in conformance with that order. Dkts. #43 and #44. Plaintiff subsequently filed approximately 200 pages across these largely duplic..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on various filings made by Plaintiff. Dkts. #48-#49, #52-#59, and #63-#65.1 On February 14, 2019, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's action and denying him leave to amend his complaint and entered a judgment in conformance with that order. Dkts. #43 and #44. Plaintiff subsequently filed approximately 200 pages across these largely duplicitous filings. Most of the filings are captioned as motions for a new trial with a demand for a jury trial. Dkts. #48, #49, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #58, #59, #64.2 Plaintiff's early filings rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)-(b) as they relate to new trials. See e.g., Dkt. #49. No trial was held in this case and Plaintiff's later filings rely on Rule 59(e). The Court similarly interprets Plaintiff's filings as motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).3
A motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) should be granted when the Court: "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Plaintiff's filings are exceedingly difficult to follow and appear to advance substantially the same arguments the Court previously rejected. The central themes of Plaintiff's filings are dissatisfaction with the Court's prior ruling and an apparent belief that he is entitled to a jury trial no matter how baseless his legal claims. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff points to no newly discovered evidence, has not demonstrated clear error or manifest injustice, and has not brought forth any change in the controlling law. Plaintiff's duplicitous and unsupported arguments fail for the same reasons identified in the Court's earlier Order (Dkt. #43).
Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that all of Plaintiff's post-judgment filings (Dkts. #48-#49, #52-#59, and #63-#65) are DENIED. This matter remains CLOSED. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's last known address.
