McColm v. San Francisco Housing Authority et al

Filing 260

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 251 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Patricia McColm moves to alter or amend the Court's September 4, 2009 Judgment in favor of Defendants San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco Housing Commission, Greg Fortner, Tony Ucciferri, Paulette Boyd and Shawn Coleman. the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply. considered on the papers. Defendants oppose v. SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. / PATRICIA A. MCCOLM, Plaintiff, No. C 06-07378 CW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The matter was

Having considered all the papers filed

by the parties, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 59(e) provides that "any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

interpreted as motions for reconsideration, and are appropriate if the district court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). A motion for reconsideration shall not "repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the [original] order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered." 9(b). DISCUSSION In its September 4, 2009 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court noted that Plaintiff's brief "fails to proffer legal argument in support of her claims or to specify the evidence that supports her claims. . . . Based only upon Plaintiff's failure to provide legal argument or to identify the evidence that supports her claims, her cross-motion for summary judgment should be denied." 2009 Order at 13. Nevertheless, in the interest of Northern District of California Civil L.R. 7-

justice, the Court addressed "what appeared to be Plaintiff's arguments" and ferreted out evidence from her declarations and documents that appeared to support her claims. In her motion to alter or amend the judgment, Plaintiff similarly fails to present legal argument or to identify the evidence that supports her claims. However, what is dispositive of

this motion is that Plaintiff fails to cite any new material 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

evidence or intervening change in the law.

With her reply,

Plaintiff submits copies of various letters and facsimiles she sent to her landlord and to the Condominium Association of her building, but these documents, which address complaints such as a loud exit door closing, the failure to place no smoking signs in the garden court, the failure to correct water damage in her unit, and the failure to provide condominium documents, do not provide evidentiary support for her claims. Plaintiff attempts to argue that the Court committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, but merely reargues what she stated in her briefs in favor of her motion for summary judgment and opposing Defendants' motion for summary judgment. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion under Rule 59(e) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2010

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA A MCCOLM, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-07378 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 2, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Patricia A. McColm P.O. Box 27274 San Francisco, CA 94127 Dated: February 2, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Ronnie Hersler, Deputy Clerk

4