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)

Download PDF
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?