Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03152/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03152-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

N CHARLES PODARAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MENLO PARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03152-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 138

On April 30, 2015, the Court filed an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Without Leave to Amend and also entered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. 

Dkts. 136 and 137. On May 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment 

and/or for relief from the judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59(e), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6). Plaintiff 

asserts that the Court’s April 30, 2015 order was "predicated upon misreading and mistaken 

understanding of facts as presented by Plaintiff.” Dkt. 138 at 2:19-20. Plaintiff argues that the 

Court’s Order was “clearly in error and results in a manifest injustice, and should be 

reconsidered.” Id. at 2:25-26. Plaintiff has filed a declaration in support of the motion, in which 

he sets forth his arguments in support of reconsideration. All defendants have filed oppositions to 

the motion. Dkts. 140-144.

"Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 

initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 

law." Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b)(3) and (6) provides relief for “fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party” or “any other reason that justifies relief,” respectively. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

Case 3:14-cv-03152-SI Document 150 Filed 06/19/15 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

60(b)(3) and (6).

The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and concludes that there is no basis for setting 

aside the judgment. Many of the arguments contained in plaintiff's declaration simply repeat 

allegations and arguments that the Court considered and found lacking. 

Plaintiff also asserts that the Court and defendants "misunderstood" the allegations of the 

FAC by asserting new facts in his declaration that were not alleged in the FAC nor discussed in 

plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss the FAC. For example, plaintiff argues that 

the Court and the San Mateo County defendants misunderstood the nature of his defamation claim 

against defendant Steve Wagstaffe. The FAC alleged that Wagstaffe made a defamatory statement 

that plaintiff’s convictions were overturned by the District Attorney’s appeals board rather than by 

the state appellate court, and the Court addressed that allegation in the order. See FAC ¶¶ 278-79; 

Dkt. 136 at 16:5-11. Plaintiff now claims that the actual defamatory statement by defendant 

Wagstaffe is when he allegedly said, “Podaras became angry and attacked the man." Dkt. 138,

Decl., pg. 9 at ¶19:12-13. Plaintiff never cited this statement in his FAC or opposition to the 

motion to dismiss, and cannot raise previously available facts in a motion to alter or amend. See 

Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740 ("[A] party that fails to introduce facts in a motion or opposition 

cannot introduce them later in a motion to amend by claiming that they constitute 'newly 

discovered evidence' unless they were previously unavailable."). In any event, even if plaintiff 

had previously included this factual allegation, or any of the other "new" facts contained in 

plaintiff's declaration, the Court nevertheless would have dismissed those claims.

In sum, for all of the reasons set forth in the Court's April 30, 2015 order and in defendants' 

oppositions to the instant motion, the Court finds that dismissal of the FAC was appropriate and 

there is no basis for altering or amending the judgment. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 

plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015 ________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03152-SI Document 150 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2