Hoeft v. Ballon

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/28/2020 DENYING 70 Motion to Set Aside the Judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICA HOEFT,

12

No. 2:16-cv-02615 CKD (PS)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

AL BALLON,

15

Defendant.

16
This action was dismissed with prejudice on September 12, 2018. (ECF No. 63.) Before

17
18

the court is plaintiff’s January 29, 2020 motion to set aside the judgment. (ECF No. 70.)

19

Defendant has filed an opposition. (ECF No. 73.)

20

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

21

or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

22

Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

23

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

24

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
Here, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is untimely, having been filed over one year

25
26
27
28

after the entry of judgment dismissing this action.1 A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made
1

The docket shows that plaintiff attempted to file motions for reconsideration in September 2019
and January 2020, but these motions were rejected as defective. (ECF Nos. 65, 66, 67, 69.)
1

1

within a reasonable time and, in any event, no more than one year after the entry of judgment or

2

order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

3

Moreover, even if the motion were timely, plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration of

4

the judgment is warranted. The court’s decision to dismiss this action with prejudice was not

5

clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors apply. In addition to being

6

untimely, plaintiff’s motion lacks merit and will be denied.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment

8

(ECF No. 70) is denied.

9

Dated: February 28, 2020

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

2 / hoeft2615.reconsid2

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2