Hong Jacqueline Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
HONG JACQUELINE NGUYEN
GARDNER,

7
8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 61

10

CHEVRON CAPITAL CORPORATION,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-01514-JD

Defendant.

12
Plaintiff has filed a “motion for reconsideration of order of dismissal per F.R.C.P. Rule

13
14

60(b).” Dkt. No. 61. The motion is procedurally improper as a motion for reconsideration under

15

Civil Local Rule 7-9, both because it did not follow the requirements of that rule and because

16

motions for reconsideration are unavailable at this stage of the litigation. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a).
The motion is also improper for relief from a final judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of

17
18

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff cites as her only ground for relief that she

19

“mistakenly believed she would be granted leave to amend if she lost the . . . motion to dismiss.”

20

Dkt. No. 61 at 3. The record shows, however, that the Court expressly stated that plaintiff had one

21

final opportunity to amend her complaint to state a claim after multiple failed attempts. See Dkt.

22

No. 38 (“The Court further informs defense counsel that it will likely dismiss the complaint, but

23

will grant plaintiff one final chance to amend.”);1 Dkt. No. 40 at 2 (“Plaintiff must file any

24

amended complaint by January 6, 2016, and it must contain non-conclusory, factual allegations of

25

the kind described in the 9-point list the Court included in its prior order of August 27, 2015. See

26
1

27
28

The Court directed this observation to defense counsel only, because plaintiff’s counsel failed to
appear for a noticed hearing and case management conference. Dkt. No. 39. But plaintiff’s
counsel could and should have seen this on the Court’s ECF docket after missing the proceeding
(for which he was subsequently sanctioned in the amount of $300).

1

Dkt. No. 25 at 2-3. If plaintiff again fails to do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint with

2

prejudice.”) (emphasis added). As the last excerpt from the Court’s dismissal order makes clear,

3

the Court further gave plaintiff considerable guidance in this case about the deficiencies in her

4

complaint. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 25.

5

Because plaintiff has failed to establish any sufficient ground for relief under Rule 60(b),

6

her motion is denied. The Court also terminates the version of the motion that was inexplicably

7

filed by the plaintiff herself (pro se), which is substantively identical to the version filed by her

8

counsel. Dkt. No. 62.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2