Podaras v. City of Menlo Park et al

Filing 150

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT 138 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

N CHARLES PODARAS,

Case No. 14-cv-03152-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

9
10

CITY OF MENLO PARK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 138

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On April 30, 2015, the Court filed an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

14

Without Leave to Amend and also entered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants.

15

Dkts. 136 and 137. On May 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment

16

and/or for relief from the judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(e), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6). Plaintiff

17
18
19
20
21

asserts that the Court’s April 30, 2015 order was "predicated upon misreading and mistaken
understanding of facts as presented by Plaintiff.” Dkt. 138 at 2:19-20. Plaintiff argues that the
Court’s Order was “clearly in error and results in a manifest injustice, and should be
reconsidered.” Id. at 2:25-26. Plaintiff has filed a declaration in support of the motion, in which
he sets forth his arguments in support of reconsideration. All defendants have filed oppositions to
the motion. Dkts. 140-144.

22
"Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is
23
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an
24
25

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling
law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 60(b)(3) and (6) provides relief for “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an

27

opposing party” or “any other reason that justifies relief,” respectively.

28

Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

1

60(b)(3) and (6).

2

The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and concludes that there is no basis for setting

3

aside the judgment. Many of the arguments contained in plaintiff's declaration simply repeat

4

allegations and arguments that the Court considered and found lacking.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff also asserts that the Court and defendants "misunderstood" the allegations of the
FAC by asserting new facts in his declaration that were not alleged in the FAC nor discussed in
plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss the FAC. For example, plaintiff argues that
the Court and the San Mateo County defendants misunderstood the nature of his defamation claim
against defendant Steve Wagstaffe. The FAC alleged that Wagstaffe made a defamatory statement
that plaintiff’s convictions were overturned by the District Attorney’s appeals board rather than by
the state appellate court, and the Court addressed that allegation in the order. See FAC ¶¶ 278-79;

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Dkt. 136 at 16:5-11. Plaintiff now claims that the actual defamatory statement by defendant
12
13
14
15
16

Wagstaffe is when he allegedly said, “Podaras became angry and attacked the man." Dkt. 138,
Decl., pg. 9 at ¶19:12-13. Plaintiff never cited this statement in his FAC or opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and cannot raise previously available facts in a motion to alter or amend. See
Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740 ("[A] party that fails to introduce facts in a motion or opposition
cannot introduce them later in a motion to amend by claiming that they constitute 'newly

17

discovered evidence' unless they were previously unavailable."). In any event, even if plaintiff

18

had previously included this factual allegation, or any of the other "new" facts contained in

19

plaintiff's declaration, the Court nevertheless would have dismissed those claims.

20

In sum, for all of the reasons set forth in the Court's April 30, 2015 order and in defendants'

21

oppositions to the instant motion, the Court finds that dismissal of the FAC was appropriate and

22

there is no basis for altering or amending the judgment.

23

plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

24

Accordingly, the Court DENIES

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: June 19, 2015

________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

27
28
2