Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03450/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03450-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDAN KUKLOK,

Plaintiff, No. C 14-03450 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

WORKFORCE SAFETY & INSURANCE,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment, brought pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the

motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good

cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion as follows. 

According to the Ninth Circuit, a Rule 59(e) motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to

be used sparingly,” and “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.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v.

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). A Rule

59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” In re Fagel, 468

Fed.Appx. 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485

n.5) (2008)).

Plaintiff’s motion challenges this court’s finding that it lacks diversity jurisdiction, and

therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff does not present newly

discovered evidence nor argue that there has been an intervening change in the controlling

Case 4:14-cv-03450-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

law, so presumably, plaintiff is arguing that the court committed clear error in dismissing the

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff’s motion argues that defendant North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance

is acting as the “sole workers’ compensation carrier in the State of North Dakota,” and

therefore is a “de facto corporation.” However, plaintiff presents no authority for finding that

a state agency can be a “de facto corporation,” and provides no basis for finding that the

court’s previous conclusion – that state agencies “have no ‘citizenship’ for the purposes of

section 1332” – was clear error. See Dkt. 44 at 2 (citing Morongo Band of Mission Indians

v. California Board of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988); Department of Fair

Labor and Housing v. Lucent Technologies, 642 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2011) (“neither a

state nor a state agency can be a party to a diversity action.”).) 

Moreover, even putting aside the diversity jurisdiction issue, the court’s dismissal

was based on two additional independent grounds – the lack of personal jurisdiction over

defendant, and the Eleventh Amendment’s bar against suits brought against state

agencies. 

Overall, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion relies on arguments that could have

been raised prior to entry of judgment, and that fail to show that the court committed clear

error in entering judgment. Thus, plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2015 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03450-PJH Document 51 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2