Perry et al v. Fantasy Records et al

Filing 110

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 107 MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE. (terminating 102 Motion for Leave to File). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8

BARNEY PERRY/PERRYAL MUSIC

Case No: C 13-1158 SBA

9 COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

10

vs.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO REOPEN THE CASE
Docket 107

12 FANTASY RECORDS, SAUL ZAENTZ

COMPANY and PAUL ZAENTZ,
13

Defendants.
14
15

On February 14, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing this action with

16

prejudice on the ground that Plaintiffs are barred from litigating the claims alleged in the

17

complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. The parties are presently before the Court on

18

pro se Plaintiff Barney Perry’s (“Perry”) motion to reopen the case. Although not entirely

19

clear, Perry’s request to reopen the case is based on, among other things, his contention that

20

“THE COURT MADE REVERSABLE [sic] ERRORS.” The Court construes Perry’s

21

motion as a motion for reconsideration brought under Rule 59(e) and/or Rule 60(b) of the

22

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Perry’s

23

motion. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral

24

argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

25

I.

26

DISCUSSION
A motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriately brought under

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388

28

(9th Cir. 1985). Under either theory, a court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for

1

reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

2

Countym Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

3

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

4

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

5

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”

6

389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Under Rule

7

60(b), a motion for reconsideration should be granted “only upon a showing of (1) mistake,

8

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void

9

judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which

10

would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Rule 60(b) provides for

11

extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.

12

Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

The Court finds that Perry has failed to make the requisite showing to warrant

14

reopening this case. Perry has not established a valid basis for reconsideration under either

15

Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Perry has not presented any compelling, substantive grounds for

16

relief. While Perry argues that the Court “made reversible errors,” he failed to proffer any

17

authority or legal analysis demonstrating that the Court erred in dismissing this action

18

without leave to amend. Accordingly, Perry’s motion to reopen the case is DENIED.

19

II.

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

21

1.

Perry’s motion to reopen the case is DENIED.

22

2.

The Clerk shall terminate Docket 107 and any other pending matters.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

4/25/2014

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-