Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALICIA CASTANEDA-VALAZAQUEZ 

GADDIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

(INSURANCE) COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-275-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 This case was dismissed action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1).1 ECF Nos. 29, 36. Plaintiff has since filed a motion 

entitled “Motion: For New Trial (‘Trial De Novo’),” ECF No. 39, and an “Amended/Revised 

Notice of Motion,” ECF No 42. Her motion cites to both Rules 59 and 60, ECF No. 39 at 3-8, 

and seeks reconsideration of the order of dismissal.2

 

///// 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2

 The court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolution of 

the motion, and the hearing noticed for November 4, 2015, ECF No. 42, is hereby vacated. E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/02/15 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

 Although plaintiff’s motion cites to both Rules 59 and 60, she is not entitled to relief 

under either rule. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or 

amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has identified four grounds for providing 

relief under Rule 59(e): (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is 

based, (2) to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (3) to apply an 

intervening change in the law, and (4) to prevent manifest injustice. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 

F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam and en banc). A district court has considerable 

discretion in ruling on a motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e). Id. “While 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 interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. 

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). When seeking 

reconsideration, a party is not permitted to “raise arguments or present evidence for the first time 

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. 

 Rule 60 provides that a court may relieve a party of a final judgment or order for mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1). Local Rule 230(j) 

provides that a motion for reconsideration must set forth the facts and circumstances surrounding 

the motion, including “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which 

did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the 

motion.” 

 Here, plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the standards under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). She has 

not identified any errors in law, any newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in law, or 

a manifest injustice. Nor has she shown any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect. Instead, she rehashes several arguments already raised in her opposition to defendants’ 

motions to dismiss and her objections to the June 24, 2015, findings and recommendations, that 

the action be dismissed; arguments previously considered and rejected by the court.3

 

 3

 In her motion, plaintiff claims that her due process rights are being violated because she 

is being “blocked” from reviewing transcripts of a hearing held before the court on April 1, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/02/15 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

Furthermore, aside from plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the standards for relief under Rule 59(e) and 

60(b), plaintiff’s motion fails to provide any basis for establishing the court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction.4 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the November 4, 2015 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is vacated. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39, 

42) be denied. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 2, 2015. 

 

ECF No. 39 at 17-18. The transcripts for that hearing, which appears at ECF No. 38 on the 

court’s docket, may be viewed at the court public terminal located at the court clerk’s office. 

4

 Plaintiff, apparently aware of the jurisdictional hurdle, asks the court to remand her case 

to state court if the “United States District Court-Eastern District is actually the incorrect 

jurisdiction.” ECF No. 39 at 20. This case, however, was originally filed in this court and not 

removed from state court. Accordingly, the court cannot remand the matter to state court. 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 53 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 3