Missud v. Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture et al

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 72 Motion for Reconsideration. (jcslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

JULIE E. MISSUD,

7

8

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 12-02967 JCS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

OAKLAND COLISEUM JOINT
VENTURE, et al.

12

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the June 27, 2013 Order dismissing the First Amended

15

Complaint with Prejudice (“Order”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Request for

16

Reconsideration of Docket # 69 (“Motion”), 1. Plaintiff asserts “that judge $pero not only ignored all

17

evidence and twisted all laws to favor the corporate $pecial intere$t$, but caused to be filed an

18

electronically-corrupted Order not in pdf format.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff attaches purports to be a copy of

19

the “electronically-corrupted” Order, which contains a number of formatting issues. Plaintiff further

20

states that the Court improperly failed to consider a dozen pictures. Id. Without contending that there

21

are any other defects in the Court’s Order, Plaintiff implies that the Order was procured by fraud. Id.

22

at 2-12.

23

Rule 59(e) provides, “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28

24

days after the entry of the judgment.” “A district court has considerable discretion when

25

consideration a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe

26

R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1

27

(9th Cir. 1999)). “There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the

28

motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

1

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

2

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id.

3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
First, the Order, found at docket number 69, is a “pdf” file. It does not contain the formatting

4
5

issues contained in the version Plaintiff attaches to the Motion. Second, the only error Plaintiff asserts

6

is the failure to consider “a dozen” pictures. In its Order Dismissing the Complaint Without Prejudice

7

the Court refused to consider several pictures, none of which were attached to or referenced in the

8

Complaint. Plaintiff has not articulated any basis to conclude that the Court should have considered

9

those pictures in the context of ruling on a motion to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil

Northern District of California

Procedure 12(b)(6), or that the Court could have done so without improperly converting the motion to

11
United States District Court

10

dismiss into one for summary judgment.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff has not identified any basis to amend

12

the judgment. The Motion is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2013

15
16
_________________________________

17

JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The photographs were ostensibly attached to support Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the condition of the overflow
parking lot. The Court treated those allegations as true in dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not
reference the photographs, or otherwise seek to incorporate the photographs, in the First Amended Complaint.

2