Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05085/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05085-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-5085 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 4/17/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROGER L. SCHAAF,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-05085 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

ALTER OR AMEND ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[re: docket nos. 12, 15]

Plaintiff Roger Schaaf moves to alter or amend the order granting Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may be brought

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v.

ACandS, 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th

Cir. 1991). The decision whether to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion

of the district court and will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Multnomah, 5 F.3d at

1262. Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate if: (1) the district court is presented

with newly discovered evidence; (2) the district court committed clear error or the initial decision

Case 5:05-cv-05085-JF Document 20 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-5085 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Id. at 1263. The

repetition of arguments which the district court already considered and rejected is not a proper

basis for reconsideration. Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442.

 Plaintiff asserts that the Court endorsed four manifest errors of law. Two of these

asserted bases of error pertain to the ALJ’s alternative finding that Plaintiff could return to his

past relevant work. Because the Court did not affirm this aspect of the ALJ’s decision, it need

not address these asserted grounds of error. The two remaining asserted bases of error repeat

arguments made to the Court previously and do not identify clear error. Accordingly, the motion

to alter or amend the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be DENIED.

DATED: April 17, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05085-JF Document 20 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-5085 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Katherine Loo katherine.loo@ssa.gov, 

Harvey Peter Sackett hps@hpspc.com, lucyc@sackettlaw.com; julie@sackettlaw.com;

juanita@sackettlaw.com 

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov;

claire.muller@usdoj.gov 

Case 5:05-cv-05085-JF Document 20 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3