Shetty v. Cisco Systems

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 28 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHRUTI SHETTY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.16-cv-06012-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS,

Re: Dkt. No. 28

Defendant.

12
13

On May 18, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Shruti Shetty’s complaint without leave to

14

amend and entered judgment. Dkt. Nos. 24, 25. Several days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to

15

vacate the judgment and for other miscellaneous relief. See Dkt. No. 26. The Court found that

16

Plaintiff did not meet the standard for reconsideration of the Court’s order and denied the motion

17

on May 24, 2017. Dkt. No. 27. On June 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

18

reconsideration, claiming that the Court “has committed ‘manifest’ or clear ‘error’ in judgment.”

19

Dkt. No. 28 at 1, 3. Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint yet again, citing myriad

20

personal and financial difficulties. Id. at 2–4.

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending

22

a judgment. Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

23

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

24

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). It cannot be used to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or

25

present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co.

26

v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008). Rather, it is appropriate if the moving party shows:

27

“(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is

28

based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the

1

motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in

2

controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

3

(quotation omitted).

4

Similarly, under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant relief if the moving party shows:

5

“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,

6

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

7

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment

8

is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier

9

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

10

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court finds that Plaintiff still fails to meet the standard for reconsideration under either

12

Rule 59 or 60. Plaintiff does little more than list vaguely-described, and largely incomprehensible,

13

harm that she has suffered physically, mentally, and financially. Plaintiff does not identify who is

14

responsible for what conduct, or even when the alleged events occurred. Instead, Plaintiff filed

15

the same motion in at least two other cases against various defendants. See Shetty v. Alphabet

16

Yahoo Google, Case No. 4:17-cv-00589-SBA (N.D. Cal.); Shetty v. Cisco, Case No. 4:17-cv-

17

00933-PJH (N.D. Cal.). The Court finds no basis to conclude that post-judgment relief is

18

warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. No further filings

19

will be accepted in this closed case.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/6/2017

22
23
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2