Sepehry-Fard v. Santa Clara County Court

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 44 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/7/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD©,

Case No. 18-cv-02665-BLF

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

8
9

SANTA CLARA COUNTY COURT, et al.,

[Re: ECF 44]

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting

12
13

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend (ECF 42). See ECF 44. Pursuant to

14

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for submission without oral

15

argument. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“MFR”) is

16

DENIED.

17

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard© (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants

18
19

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (“the Superior Court”), Lisa Herrick

20

(“Herrick”) and Benjamin Rada (“Rada”) (collectively, “the Defendants”), alleging violations of

21

the Freedom of Information Act1 (“FOIA”) and California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). See

22

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 20–24, 39–59, ECF 21. The Court found Plaintiff’s claims

23

against the Superior Court and Defendants Herrick and Rada in their official capacities barred

24

under the Eleventh Amendment and that the Ex parte Young doctrine did not apply. See ECF 42

25

at 5–6. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants Herrick and

26

Rada in their individual capacities upon which relief could be granted because FOIA is

27
28

1

5 U.S.C. § 552.

1

inapplicable to the State or its employees and because Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims did not

2

plausibly show deprivation of a federal right. See id. at 6. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims

3

with prejudice except as to a claim for violation of CPRA based on state law which was dismissed

4

without prejudice to filing in state court. Id. at 7. The Court entered Judgment accordingly. See

5

ECF 43. In addition, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

6

(ECF 37) for failure to identify any basis upon which to strike Defendant’s motion. See ECF 42 at

7

3–4.

8

The present motion followed. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

9

as being filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See MFR at 1 (citing Rule 59(e)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

and quoting the applicable standard under Rule 59(e)).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

12

A court can, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), alter or amend a judgment

13

upon a showing of one of four grounds: “(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of

14

law or fact; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;

15

(3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in

16

controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

17

(internal quotations and citation omitted). A motion brought under Rule 59 is not an opportunity

18

for a party to re-litigate the claims that were before the Court prior to judgment, but is instead an

19

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

20

resources.” Kona Enterps., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal

21

quotation and citation omitted) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or

22

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

23

litigation,” and should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances.”).

24

III.

DISCUSSION

25

Plaintiff argues that (1) the Court incorrectly denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike; and (2) the

26

Court made a jurisdictional error in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. See MFR at 2–4, 9–11. Plaintiff

27

also “demands a grand jury proceeding.” MFR at 8. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s

28

motion is DENIED.
2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is based the argument that the Court incorrectly

1

applied or interpreted the Civil Local Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal law.

3

However, Plaintiff has identified no “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence” or

4

“intervening change in controlling law” that would provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its

5

Dismissal Order under Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), or any other authority relied on by the Court.

6

See Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary “to

7

correct manifest errors of law or fact” or “to prevent manifest injustice.” See id. Instead,

8

Plaintiff’s motion is essentially an unallowable attempt to re-litigate the claims before the Court

9

prior to judgment. See Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. Plaintiff also appears to argue that it is improper

10

for the Court to refer to itself as “the Court.” See MFR at 2–3. This argument is not a basis for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

reconsideration and has no merit.
Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments could have been raised earlier in

12
13

the litigation, and in any event, do not amount to “highly unusual circumstances” that would

14

warrant reconsideration. See Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

15

arguments fail to satisfy any of the four factors in Turner, or the “highly unusual circumstances”

16

standard in Kona. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration at ECF 44 is DENIED.

17

IV.

18
19

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The

corresponding hearing set for April 25, 2019, is hereby VACATED.

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3