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)

Download PDF
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?