Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02665/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02665-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD©,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02665-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re: ECF 44]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend (ECF 42). See ECF 44. Pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for submission without oral 

argument. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“MFR”) is 

DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard© (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants 

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (“the Superior Court”), Lisa Herrick 

(“Herrick”) and Benjamin Rada (“Rada”) (collectively, “the Defendants”), alleging violations of 

the Freedom of Information Act1(“FOIA”) and California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). See

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 20–24, 39–59, ECF 21. The Court found Plaintiff’s claims 

against the Superior Court and Defendants Herrick and Rada in their official capacities barred 

under the Eleventh Amendment and that the Ex parte Young doctrine did not apply. See ECF 42 

at 5–6. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants Herrick and 

Rada in their individual capacities upon which relief could be granted because FOIA is 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 552. 

Case 5:18-cv-02665-BLF Document 49 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 3
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

inapplicable to the State or its employees and because Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims did not 

plausibly show deprivation of a federal right. See id. at 6. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims 

with prejudice except as to a claim for violation of CPRA based on state law which was dismissed 

without prejudice to filing in state court. Id. at 7. The Court entered Judgment accordingly. See 

ECF 43. In addition, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

(ECF 37) for failure to identify any basis upon which to strike Defendant’s motion. See ECF 42 at 

3–4. 

The present motion followed. The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

as being filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See MFR at 1 (citing Rule 59(e)

and quoting the applicable standard under Rule 59(e)).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court can, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), alter or amend a judgment 

upon a showing of one of four grounds: “(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of 

law or fact; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 

(3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(internal quotations and citation omitted). A motion brought under Rule 59 is not an opportunity 

for a party to re-litigate the claims that were before the Court prior to judgment, but is instead an 

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 

resources.” Kona Enterps., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal 

quotation and citation omitted) (“A Rule 59(e) motion 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,” and should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances.”). 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that (1) the Court incorrectly denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike; and (2) the 

Court made a jurisdictional error in dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. See MFR at 2–4, 9–11. Plaintiff 

also “demands a grand jury proceeding.” MFR at 8. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED. 

Case 5:18-cv-02665-BLF Document 49 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is based the argument that the Court incorrectly 

applied or interpreted the Civil Local Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and federal law. 

However, Plaintiff has identified no “newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence” or 

“intervening change in controlling law” that would provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its 

Dismissal Order under Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), or any other authority relied on by the Court. 

See Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary “to 

correct manifest errors of law or fact” or “to prevent manifest injustice.” See id. Instead, 

Plaintiff’s motion is essentially an unallowable attempt to re-litigate the claims before the Court 

prior to judgment. See Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. Plaintiff also appears to argue that it is improper 

for the Court to refer to itself as “the Court.” See MFR at 2–3. This argument is not a basis for 

reconsideration and has no merit. 

Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments could have been raised earlier in 

the litigation, and in any event, do not amount to “highly unusual circumstances” that would 

warrant reconsideration. See Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

arguments fail to satisfy any of the four factors in Turner, or the “highly unusual circumstances” 

standard in Kona. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration at ECF 44 is DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The 

corresponding hearing set for April 25, 2019, is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02665-BLF Document 49 Filed 01/07/19 Page 3 of 3