Womack v. Metropolitan Transit System et al

Filing 74

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 65 Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/24/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jer)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT C. WOMACK,

Case No. 09cv2679 BTM(NLS)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT

v.
13
14

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM, et
al.

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

19

In an Order filed on February 28, 2011, the Court granted summary judgment in favor

20

of Defendants. Judgment was entered on March 2, 2011. Plaintiff filed the instant motion

21

on March 17, 2011.

22

There are four basic grounds upon which relief under Rule 59(e) may be granted: (1)

23

if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment

24

rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable

25

evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the

26

amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Allstate Ins. Co. v.

27

Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy” that

28

should be used “sparingly.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
1

09cv2679 BTM(NLS)

1

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments and has reviewed the exhibits

2

submitted by Plaintiff, and concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any grounds for

3

altering the judgment. For the most part, Plaintiff rehashes the arguments he made in

4

opposition to the motion for summary judgment and takes issue with factual details that do

5

not affect the outcome of the case. Plaintiff’s “new evidence” was previously available, and

6

Plaintiff has not established that Defendants and/or their counsel engaged in any misconduct

7

that affected the Court’s decision. Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision,

8

Plaintiff has not shown that the Court committed errors of law or fact upon which the

9

judgment rests.

10
11
12
13

Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for relief from a
judgment or order under Rule 60(b), Plaintiff has not established a basis for relief.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
DATED: May 24, 2011
15
16
17

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

09cv2679 BTM(NLS)