(PS) Parker v. JP Morgan Chase
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/26/21 DENYING 9 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JP Morgan Chase,
The court construes the filing at ECF No. 9 as a motion to reconsider the order adopting
the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir.
2001), and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The court denies the
requested relief. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)
“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed
clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation omitted)); Winter
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (identifying the showing required of a
plaintiff who seeks preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order). Similar
requests filed in the future will be disregarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 26, 2021.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?