Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 AUDREY L. KIMNER, 8 Case No. 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 MARGARET A. POISSANT, Re: Dkt. No. 14 11 Defendant. 12 13 On January 29, 2020, this Court determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented 14 Plaintiff Audrey Kimner from proceeding with her case and dismissed certain Defendants from the 15 action. See Dkt. 13. The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint as to the 16 one Defendant not affected by Rooker-Feldman. Id. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff Audrey 17 Kimner filed a Motion to Vacate, which asks the Court to vacate its decision to release certain 18 Defendants. Dkt. 14. Thus, in essence, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its earlier ruling. 19 Accordingly, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration. See Erickson 20 v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (discussing the lower standard for pro se plaintiffs, namely that 21 they are held to “less stringent standards” with respect to pleadings). 22 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 23 the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 24 from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 25 reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 26 unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 27 interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 1 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 2 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 3 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 4 || interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Jd. (citation and internal quotation 5 marks omitted). 6 Plaintiff has not established that the standard for reconsideration is met. Plaintiff has not 7 shown a change in law, clear error, or the emergence of new material facts. Rather, Plaintiffs 8 motion to vacate focuses on the same factual allegations as Plaintiffs earlier motions. Compare 9 Dkt. 14 at 2 (discussing how Defendants violated her rights), with Dkt. 10 at 2 (same). 10 || Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for reconsideration is DENIED. 11 Plaintiff may still file an amended complaint as to Ms. Poissant by February 28, 2020. 12 || The amended complaint must cure the deficiencies noted in this Order or the Court will dismiss g 13 Plaintiffs claim(s) against Ms. Poissant. Before filing an amended complaint, this Court strongly 14 || urges Plaintiff to seek assistance from the Pro Se Program 3 15 (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj). The Federal Pro Se Program provides free A 16 || information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The program 5 17 is located in Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse, and is available by 18 appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.—4:00 p.m. The Program can also be reached by 19 || calling (408) 297-1480. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: February 11, 2020 22 aD. EDWARD J. DAVILA 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION