Brinker v. JP Morgan Chase N.A. et al

Filing 184

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 172 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALAN BRINKER,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

JP MORGAN CHASE N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17

In November 2014, Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
and California Reconveyance Company settled this case.1 Five months later, with this case still on
its docket, the court issued an order enforcing that settlement.2 And after six more months, in light
of Brinker’s continued refusal to sign an agreement in accordance with the settlement, the court
finally dismissed Brinker’s complaint3 and entered judgment against him.4 Now, Brinker asks the
court to revisit its decision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b).5

18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket No. 172)

10

13

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

A court should alter or amend a judgment only in rare circumstances. “Although Rule
59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an
‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conversation of judicial

21
22

1

See Docket No. 116.

2

See Docket No. 148.

3

See Docket No. 170.

4

See Docket No. 171.

5

See Docket No. 172.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

1

resources.’”6 Such a motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless

2

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is

3

an intervening change in the controlling law.”7 Similarly, “Rule 60(b) ‘provides for

4

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

5

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6)

6

extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.’”8
Instead of addressing the standards under Rule 59 or Rule 60, Brinker argues simply that

7
8

the judgment was too harsh. A district court may dismiss an action with prejudice “[f]or failure of

9

the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order of court.”9 As the court explained in
dismissing the case, Brinker has never given a plausible justification for failing to obey the court’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

order,10 and he offers nothing new here.
Moreover, “the court has pursued less drastic alternatives, including ordering Brinker to

12
13

sign the settlement, to no avail.”11 Even after Brinker filed this motion, the court gave him yet

14

another chance to sign an agreement, this one based on his own proposal.12 He again spurned that

15

opportunity.13 And while Brinker points to his pro se status at one point during this case, the

16

record is clear that he has been represented by not one but two attorneys during these events.14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

6

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 Moore’s
Federal Practice § 59.30[4]).
7

Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

8

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

10

See Docket No. 170 at 1-2.

11

Id. at 2.

12

See Docket No. 177.

13

See Docket No. 183.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

1

Because Brinker has not shown that he is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of an altered

2

judgment,15 the motion is DENIED.

3

SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: March 28, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14

See Docket No. 8 at ¶ 1; Docket No. 172-2 at ¶ 1.

15

Id. (quoting 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4]).

26
27
28

3
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT