Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO VACATE OR ALTER JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/6/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SHARON BRIDGEWATER,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. 10-03022 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
TO VACATE OR
ALTER JUDGMENT

v.
HAYES VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et
al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater moves for reconsideration and to

16

vacate or alter a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 59(e).

18

February 22, 2011 order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss

19

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and to declare Plaintiff a

20

vexatious litigant and denying Plaintiff's motion to amend her

21

complaint.

22

This motion seeks to vacate or alter the Court's

Rule 59(e) provides that "any motion to alter or amend a

23

judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of

24

judgment."

25

interpreted as motions for reconsideration, and are appropriate if

26

the district court "(1) is presented with newly discovered

27

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Rule 59(e) motions are

1

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

2

controlling law."

3

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

4

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

In her motion, Plaintiff repeats many of the arguments

5

addressed in the February 22, 2011 order.

6

motion is supported by another amended complaint she wishes to file

7

against Defendants for violations of the Federal False Claims Act.

8

Plaintiff’s arguments do not meet any of the requirements for

9

reconsideration.

She also argues the

Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is denied.

11

shall be returned to Plaintiff.

12

file it and cannot file it as a matter of right.

13

of Civil Procedure 15(a).

The new amended complaint that Plaintiff wishes to file
Plaintiff did not seek leave to
See Federal Rule

The above entitled case is closed.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: 12/6/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
BRIDGEWATER,

Case Number: CV10-03022 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
7
8

HAYES VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et
al,
Defendant.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

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 December 6, 2011, 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.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Sharon Bridgewater
Bridgewater and Company Inc
In Care of: Sharon Bridgewater
965 Mission Street, Suite 409
San Francisco, CA 94104
Dated: December 6, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3