Steven Andre v. Bank of America, NA et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 92 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEVEN ANDRE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket No. 92)

10

13

Case No. 14-cv-02888-PSG

After the court dismissed Plaintiff Steven Andre’s second amended complaint1 and entered
judgment against him,2 Andre asks the court to revisit its decision.3 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 resources.’”4 Such a motion “should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law.”5

20
21

1

See Docket No. 90.

22

2

See Docket No. 91.

23

3

24
25
26

See Docket No. 92. Though Andre styles it as a motion for reconsideration, Civ. L.R. 7-9
precludes such motions once a judgment has been entered. Instead, the court will treat Andre’s
motion as one to alter the judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
4

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

27

5

28

1
Case No. 14-cv-02888-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

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

Andre’s motion identifies no new evidence or change in controlling law. Instead, he

1
2

repeats a number of arguments that the court has rejected several times, and he raises new

3

arguments in response to the court’s order. As to the former, the court is not persuaded that its

4

previous decisions constituted clear error. And as to the latter, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion may not be

5

used to raise arguments . . . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier

6

in the litigation.”6 Because Andre has not shown that he is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy”

7

of an altered judgment,7 his motion is DENIED.8

8

SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: March 24, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

6

Id. (citing 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665).

25

7

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

26

8

27
28

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the court finds this motion suitable for determination without oral
argument. The hearing on this motion, scheduled for March 29, is vacated.
2
Case No. 14-cv-02888-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT