(PS) RuBang v. Brooks ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ERIC R. BROOKS; KELLER WILLIAMS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 19 to Compel and Motion to Stay. (ECF Nos. 50, 52.) On February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge 20 issued findings and recommendations herein recommending dismissing Plaintiff’s fourth 21 amended complaint without prejudice and closing this case. (ECF No. 34.) The findings and 22 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) and subsequently filed a fifth 25 amended complaint (ECF No. 36.). On March 24, 2020, this Court adopted the findings and 26 recommendations after reviewing Plaintiff’s filings and entered judgment closing the case. (ECF 27 Nos. 40, 41.) Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in turn affirmed this 28 Court’s decision. (ECF Nos. 42, 46.) 1 On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 2 | 50), followed by a “Motion to Stay” on September 22, 2021. (ECF No. 52.) In his motion to 3 | compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendants to produce Plaintiff's mortgage documents. 4 | (ECF 50.) Plaintiff further requests the Court to stay the case to “lead to more discoveries of 5 | valuable [information].” (ECF No. 52 at 1.) 6 This case is closed. In the event Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its prior order, 7 || reconsideration is not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 8 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (Pursuant to “Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should 9 | not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 10 | newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 11 | controlling law.”). As to his motions to compel and to stay, because this case is closed and a 12 || reopening of this case is not appropriate, “it is apparent that [P]laintiff will not [be] able to 13 || succeed on the merits of his claims.” Driver v. U.S. Special Master, No. 1:17-cv-00202-DAD- 14 | BAM-PC, 2020 WL 902271, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020). 15 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 16 | and to Stay (ECF Nos. 50, 52) with prejudice. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Date: October 7, 2021 0 {) □ /) 21 “ Mp / 22 Troy L. Nunley ] 73 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28