Terry v. Smith et al

Filing 134

ORDER Denying 131 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DEWEY TERRY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

v.
BRAD SMITH, et al.,

Docket No. 131

Defendants.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 13-cv-01227-EMC

13

On December 2, 2016, the Court granted Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment and

14

entered judgment against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, in

15

which he re-argues his opposition to Defendants‟ motion and asks the Court to send the case back

16

for further settlement proceedings. Docket No. 131.

17

A Rule 59(e) motion seeks to “alter or amend the judgment” and must be filed within 28

18

days after judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “[A]ltering or amending a judgment [under

19

Rule 59(e)] is an „extraordinary remedy‟ usually available only when (1) the court committed

20

manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court is presented with newly discovered or previously

21

unavailable evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change

22

in the controlling law.” Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 491-92 (9th Cir. 2016); see also

23

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Plaintiff‟s motion does

24

not show his entitlement to any relief under Rule 59(e) from the order granting summary

25

judgment.

26

Plaintiff also argues that the Court should send the case back for further settlement

27

proceedings because, in his view, it was improper for Defendants to offer a settlement package

28

that, among other things, required that he leave the employ of CALPIA. Plaintiff offers no

1

persuasive legal authority for his view that a settlement offer violates a litigant‟s constitutional

2

rights, especially when that settlement offer is not accepted. Plaintiff chose not to settle when the

3

case was referred for settlement proceedings and counsel was provided to Plaintiff for purposes of

4

those settlement proceedings. Now that one of the risks of not settling the case has occurred -- i.e.,

5

Plaintiff has lost and judgment has been entered against him -- the Court will not undo the

6

judgment so that Plaintiff can rethink his interest in settlement.

7

The motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 131.)

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13

Dated: January 10, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2