Kreinzenbeck v. Hewlett-Packard
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/1/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 14 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Duong, D)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JUNE M. KREINZENBECK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
HEWLETT-PACKARD,
12
Defendant.
________________________________
2:11-cv-00904-GEB-GGH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
13
On
14
September
15,
2011,
Plaintiff
filed
a
Motion
for
15
“Reconsideration/Grant” arguing her Amended Complaint “does arise under
16
Federal Law.” (ECF No. 14.)
This
17
action
was
dismissed
for
lack
of
subject
matter
18
jurisdiction and judgment was entered on September 6, 2011. (ECF Nos.
19
12-13.) Since Plaintiff’s motion was “filed within [twenty-eight] days
20
of entry of judgment”, it is “treated as a motion to alter or amend
21
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [(“Rule”)] 59(e)[.]”
22
American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d
23
892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001).
“Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a
24
25
judgment if
(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered
26
evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an
27
initial
28
intervening
decision
that
change
in
was
manifestly
controlling
1
unjust,
law.”
or
United
(3)
Nat’l
there
is
an
Ins.
Co.
v.
1
Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
2
quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged a federal claim;
3
therefore,
4
jurisdiction
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
6
7
dismissing
was
not
this
action
“clear
error”
for
or
lack
of
subject
“manifestly
unjust”.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 1, 2011
8
9
10
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
matter
Id.
]]>
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?
