Mota v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eric J Markovich on 9/9/2019. (ARC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gilbert Mota,

No. CV-17-00555-TUC-EJM
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Commissioner
Administration,

ORDER

13
14
15
16

of

Social

Security

Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Doc. 29).

17

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file a

18

“motion to alter or amend a judgment.” The Ninth Circuit has explained that [s]ince

19

specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court

20

enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.” McDowell v.

21

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam) (internal

22

quotation marks omitted). But amending a judgment after its entry remains “an

23

extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks

24

omitted). In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be

25

granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon

26

which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or

27

previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest

28

injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

1

Id.; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 59(e) “may not

2

be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have

3

been made prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471,

4

485 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted).

5
6
7

The Court’s previous Order (Doc. 26) fully explained the Court’s reasoning for its
decision. The Court will not repeat itself again here. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend

8

Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (Doc. 29).

9

Dated this 9th day of September, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-