Jacquelyne Hollander v. The Irrevocable Trust Established by James Brown in August 1, 2000 et al
Filing
45
MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Plaintiffs motion to vacate 36 IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ir)
<![CDATA[
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 10-7249 PSG (AJWx)
Title
Jacqueline Hollander v. The Irrevocable Trust Established by James Brown in
August 1, 2000, et al.
Present:
Date
Sept. 20, 2011
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Not Present
Proceedings:
n/a
Tape No.
Not Present
(In Chambers) Order DENYING Plaintiff’s motion to vacate
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Hollander’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to vacate, amend,
or grant relief from the Court’s June 30, 2011 Order dismissing her Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In that Order, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s
claims were subject to the “probate exception” of subject matter jurisdiction. Now, in bringing
this motion, Plaintiff contends that vacatur of the Court’s June 2011 Order is appropriate
because the Court failed to consider certain issues and wrongfully decided other issues. Having
read and considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, the
Court disagrees.
Although stylized as a motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the
substance of Plaintiff’s argument indicates that her motion is properly construed as a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Stewart
v. Wachowski, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “Although Rule 59(e) permits a
district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy,
to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’ ” Kona
CV 10-7429 (09/11)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 10-7249 PSG (AJWx)
Date
Sept. 20, 2011
Title
Jacqueline Hollander v. The Irrevocable Trust Established by James Brown in
August 1, 2000, et al.
Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). Plaintiff does not even attempt to meet any of these requirements. 1
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, amend, or grant relief
from the Court’s June 30, 2011 Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1
This result would not change were the court to consider it as a request for relief under Rule
60(b). Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes a court to relieve a party from an order or judgment, inter alia,
where the judgment is a result of the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiff presents no evidence as would justify relief on this
basis.
CV 10-7429 (09/11)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
