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)

Download PDF
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

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?