Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al

Filing 102


Download PDF
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

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?