Arnold v. Smith et al
Filing
72
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (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
RICHARD L. ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT
v.
BRAD SMITH, et al.,
Docket No. 71
Defendants.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 13-cv-04456-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. 71.
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. 71.)
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
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?