Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05957/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05957-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LILLIYA WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE WILLIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05957-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

NOTICE TO THE COURT

[Re: ECF 12]

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff Lilliya Willis, proceeding pro se, filed a “notice to the 

court,” in which Willis states, “The order for i a woman, signed by [Judge] Beth Labson Freeman

on the date of December 13, 2016 required explanation.” Notice, ECF 12. The Court construes 

Willis’ Notice as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

A motion “under Rule 59(e) 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.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 

1254 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration 

‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 

Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000)).

The Court previously adopted Judge Lloyd’s report and recommendation and dismissed the 

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In her Notice, Willis’ articulates the following basis 

for amending this Court’s judgment:

Case 5:16-cv-05957-BLF Document 13 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

My common law case is only for trial by jury and can not be 

dismissed by any member of legal society; only men, women of my 

peer have the capacity and power to rule my case. . . . My case is 

my property; my case is to be remained sealed, not opened, not to be 

examined, not to be given legal society opinion by any employee of 

the public court house which has duties and obligations to the 

public; i am public and i have rights. The wrong was/is done to me 

and i have rights to bring the matter to the open court of record, trial 

by jury under common law rules which is established and protected 

for me by the seventh amendment and that is the most superior law 

of this land.

Notice 1. Willis does not explain how these assertions satisfy the prerequisites under Rule 59(e). 

Moreover, other than the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Willis provides no 

authority for her assertions. Id. The Seventh Amendment, however, does not provide authority 

for this Court to decide cases that do not fall within its jurisdiction. 

In sum, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

Plaintiff has identified no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law to 

justify overturning this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Willis’ motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 59(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05957-BLF Document 13 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 2