Olajide v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco et al
Filing
54
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 13, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2017)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
OLANAPO AD OLAJIDE,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-04472-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER
JUDGMENT
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 53
12
By order filed January 3, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss,
13
14
including a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Compass Bank ("Compass"), and
15
dismissed the operative pleading, the Second Amended Complaint, without further leave
16
to amend. In so ruling, the Court considered a proposed Third Amended Complaint
17
plaintiff Olanapo Ad Olajide had provided with his response to the motions, and found
18
that affording plaintiff leave to amend to file such proposed amended pleading would be
19
futile. Thereafter, on January 4, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered judgment on the
20
Court's order.
Now before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment on Court
21
22
Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," filed January 11, 2017, by which plaintiff
23
seeks an order vacating the Court's order dismissing his claims against Compass without
24
further leave to amend and, instead, issuing an order affording him leave to file "a new
25
complaint" against Compass, which proposed pleading is attached as an exhibit to his
26
motion to amend or alter the judgment. Having read and considered plaintiff's motion,
27
the Court rules as follows.
28
//
1
“[C]onsistent with [the] policy of promoting the finality of judgments . . ., once
2
judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend the complaint can only be
3
entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60
4
[of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]." Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th
5
Cir.1996).
6
Here, plaintiff seeks to reopen the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). A motion
7
brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) to “alter or amend a judgment,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
8
may be granted where the moving party establishes one of the following circumstances:
9
"1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there
12
is an intervening change in controlling law." See Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe
13
Railroad Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation, citation, and
14
emphasis omitted). Plaintiff fails, however, to establish that any of the above-referenced
15
circumstances exists in this instance. In particular, plaintiff fails to explain why the claims
16
set forth in the newly proposed amended complaint could not have been offered in
17
connection with plaintiff's response to Compass's motion to dismiss the Second
18
Amended Complaint.
19
Moreover, separate from the above-referenced deficiency, affording plaintiff leave
20
to amend to allege the claims in the newly proposed amended complaint would be futile,
21
as said pleading fails to set forth a legally cognizable claim against Compass. (See
22
Proposed Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, 14.)
23
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: January 13, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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?