Alejandro Picazo v. Randstad US, LP et al

Filing 116

ORDER denying 110 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/8/2018. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ALEJANDRO PICAZO,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

14
15

Case No.5:16-cv-06644-HRL

RANDSTAD US, LP,

Re: Dkt. No. 110

Defendant.

16
17

On March 27, 2018, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted

18
19

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment accordingly. (Dkts. 106,

20

107).

21

On April 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a declaration “in support of Motion J.M.O.L.,” presumably

22

meaning that he now seeks judgment as a matter of law. (Dkt. 110). Plaintiff subsequently filed

23

additional documents. (Dkts. 112, 114, 115). Defendant objects to plaintiff’s motion. The matter

24

is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Having considered the moving and

25

responding papers, and for the reasons to be discussed, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

26

Motions for judgment as a matter of law generally are brought in the context of a jury trial.

27

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. No jury trial was held here. Having read plaintiff’s papers, the court finds

28

that they are more properly construed as a request to amend or alter the judgment or for relief from

1

the judgment. Although such relief is available under Fed. R. Civ. P. and 59(e) and 60(b), Picazo

2

has not persuaded that he is entitled to relief under either rule.

3

“While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the

4

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

5

conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2003)

6

(citation omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

7

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

8

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting

9

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “A Rule 59(e) motion
may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.

12

“Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism for parties to

13

seek relief from a judgment when it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

14

prospective application, or when there is any reason justifying relief from judgment.” Jeff D. v.

15

Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2004). A movant may seek relief from a final judgment

16

for six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

17

evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3)

18

fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any

19

other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).

20

The Rule 60(b)(6) “catch-all” provision applies only when the reason for granting relief is

21

not covered by any of the other reasons set out in Rule 60. Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044

22

(9th Cir. 2007). “‘Rule 60(b)(6) has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

23

manifest injustice’ and ‘is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party

24

from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’” Id. (quoting United

25

States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). Thus, a party who

26

seeks such relief “‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that

27

prevented him from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion.’”

28

Id. (quoting Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)).
2

1

Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or a belief that the court is wrong in its decision

2

is not an adequate basis for relief under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Doe I v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No.

3

5:11-cv-02449-EJD, 2015 WL 5118004 at *2 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2005) (citing Twentieth

4

Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981); Yocom v. Grounds,

5

No. C10-03609 SBA, 2012 WL 2277909 at *1 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2012).

6

Picazo has not met the standard for relief under either rule. He reiterates that on June 23,

7

2016, he spoke with Judith Leal and showed her a report concerning his injury; and, plaintiff says

8

that Leal told him that they were not going to use his reports. Claiming that he took a drug screen

9

first and then saw the doctor at the Pinnacle clinic, plaintiff now denies walking out before
completing the second drug screen and says that Pinnacle told him he was free to go to Randstad.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

He now also complains that defendant delayed telling him about his termination. In ruling on

12

summary judgment, the court already considered---and credited---plaintiff’s assertions as to his

13

June 23, 2016 discussion with Leal. (Dkt. 106 at 12-13). The court also noted the dates when

14

underlying events occurred and accounted for plaintiff’s claim that Randstad staff said they were

15

not going to use his reports. (Id. at 4, 6-7). Plaintiff has not provided a basis to reconsider those

16

rulings.

17

As for plaintiff’s other statements and assertions, “[a] motion for relief from judgment is

18

not an appeal or an otherwise proper vehicle to relitigate the underlying claims at issue.” Kwong

19

v. Santa Clara Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 17-cv-02127-BLF, 2018 WL 2041797 at *3 (N.D. Cal.,

20

May 2, 2018). “‘[T]he merits of a case are not before the court on a Rule 60(b) motion.’” Id.

21

(quoting Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2004)). Picazo has not

22

presented any new facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably raised earlier in the

23

litigation. He argues that defendant is lying, but he has not presented “clear and convincing

24

evidence that the [judgment] was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct,”

25

or that the conduct complained of prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case. Id.

26

(quoting De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000)).

27

Indeed, as noted in the court’s summary judgment order, plaintiff made myriad filings in

28

connection with the summary judgment motions. And, the court reviewed and considered each
3

1

one, even though many were untimely and unauthorized, including papers filed after the motions

2

were deemed submitted. The court otherwise finds no extraordinary circumstances justifying

3

relief. Picazo’s motion therefore is denied.

4
5

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2018

6
7
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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
26
27
28
4