Kwong v. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING 86 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/26/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2018)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

SUZANNE DUYEN KWONG,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

Case No. 17-cv-02127-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

v.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, et al.,

[Re: ECF 86]

Defendants.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff Suzanne Duyen Kwong (“Kwong”) has filed an “Administrative Motion for

12

Reinstatement of Contract,” and supporting documents in this closed case. See ECF 86, 86-1, 86-

13

2. The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that Kwong’s requested relief is largely

14

unintelligible. However, given that Kwong is proceeding pro se, the Court shall liberally construe

15

her motion and treat it as a timely filed motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of

16

Civil Procedure 59(e). Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The Court entered Judgment

17

against Kwong in this action on March 12, 2018. See ECF 85. Rule 59(e) is the proper procedural

18

rule for Kwong to challenge the Court’s final judgment, and it is timely filed within 28 days after

19

the entry of Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). For the reasons below, Kwong’s motion to alter

20

or amend the judgment is DENIED.

21

A motion “under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

22

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

23

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

24

1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration

25

‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

26

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

27

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

28

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000)).

1

Kwong does not present any proper grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59. The

2

arguments in Kwong’s motion are mostly unclear, but she appears to challenge this Court’s

3

determination granting the Wells Fargo Defendants motion to dismiss with prejudice, and requests

4

the Court to reinstate the case. See ECF 86-1 at 10. Kwong identifies incomprehensible “fatal

5

defects” and appears to repeat many of her substantive arguments challenging the loan at issue in

6

this case. Id. at 5. In her ten page “Notice of Breach of Contract,” she explains: “I am reporting

7

crimes. I am assigning errors. I am perfecting my contract records.” ECF 86-1 at 5. Kwong has

8

not identified any newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law to justify

9

overturning this Court’s dismissal of her case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). Accordingly, the Court

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DENIES Kwong’s motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e).
To the extent the “Motion for Reinstatement of Contract” and supporting documents are
intended for some other purpose, the motion is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: March 26, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2