Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING 34 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/15/2022. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:20-cv-08094-BLF Document 44 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KENNETH LAWRENCE LENK,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-08094-BLF

v.
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 59(e)
[Re: ECF 34]

12
13
14

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal

15

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (ECF 34), Defendant’s opposition (ECF 38), and Plaintiff’s reply

16

(ECF 41). The motion was not noticed for hearing, and the Court finds it suitable for decision

17

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a party may file a motion to alter or amend a

19

judgment within 28 days after the entry of the judgment. The Ninth Circuit has identified “four

20

basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to

21

correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is

22

necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is

23

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening

24

change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).

25

Under unusual circumstances, situations outside those listed above may provide grounds for relief

26

under Rule 59(e). See id. However, “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly

27

in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate

28

of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Case 5:20-cv-08094-BLF Document 44 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 2

1

Plaintiff has not demonstrate a basis for this extraordinary remedy in this case. While
Plaintiff purports to identify errors of law and fact in the Court’s dismissal order (ground 1), he

3

simply disagrees with the Court’s conclusions that all of his claims were subject to dismissal on

4

one or more grounds, including the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, res judicata, collateral estoppel,

5

statute of limitations, and failure to allege sufficient facts. His rehash of arguments already

6

considered by the Court and rejected do not constitute a basis for relief. Plaintiff does not present

7

new evidence (ground 2), although he suggests that he has taken steps to procure new evidence in

8

support of his blacklisting claims that he expects to obtain “in the next few weeks.” Mot. at 7,

9

ECF 34. Plaintiff’s expectation that he may obtain new evidence does not provide a basis for

10

relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the dismissal of this suit – the fourth lawsuit he has

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

litigated in the eight years since separating from employment with Defendant – was manifestly

12

unjust (ground 3). Plaintiff has been afforded numerous chances to state a viable claim for relief

13

against Defendant and has failed to do so. Finally, Plaintiff has not identified any intervening

14

change in controlling law that warrants relief (ground 4). The laws that he identifies were enacted

15

and effective before this latest suit was filed.

16

Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED.

17

This order terminates ECF 34.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: February 15, 2022
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2