Olajide v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 22, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2017)

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 SECOND MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 55, 56 12 13 By order filed January 3, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, 14 and dismissed the operative pleading, the Second Amended Complaint, without further 15 leave to amend. The following day, January 4, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered 16 judgment on the Court's order of dismissal. Thereafter, by order filed January 13, 2017, 17 the Court denied plaintiff's motion, filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure, to amend or alter the judgment, finding plaintiff had failed to identify any 19 cognizable basis for relief under Rule 59(e). 20 Now before the Court is plaintiff's second "Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment on 21 Court Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," filed February 2, 2017, by which 22 plaintiff again seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(e). Having read and considered plaintiff's 23 motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.1 24 A motion for relief under Rule 59(e) "must be filed no later than 28 days after the 25 entry of judgment." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff filed the instant motion 29 days 26 after entry of judgment, and, consequently, the motion is untimely. A "district court has 27 1 28 Plaintiff's request that the motion be heard telephonically is DENIED as moot. 1 no discretion to consider a late [R]ule 59(e) motion," see Carter v. United States, 973 2 F.2d 1479, 1488 (9th Cir. 1992), as the time period set forth in Rule 59(e) is 3 "jurisdictional," see Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir. 1984). 4 5 6 Accordingly, plaintiff's second motion for relief under Rule 59(e) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: February 22, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 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?