Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05279/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05279-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR PODGORNY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-5279 MEJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND 

In a Judgment and Order entered on July 29, 2005, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment and granted Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court also denied

Plaintiff's request that the claim be remanded based on new evidence. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's

Motion to Alter or Amend Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 59(e), filed on August 4,

2005. Upon review of Plaintiff's motion, the parties' briefing in support of and against the motion, relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court finds that it must deny Plaintiff's motion.

FRCP 59(e) authorizes a motion to alter or amend a judgment after its entry. Rule 59(e), however

is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

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

Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if: (1) the motion is "necessary to correct manifest

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 21 Filed 09/07/05 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

errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;" (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." McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir.

1999). This showing is a "high hurdle." Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). A

judgment is not properly reopened "absent highly unusual circumstances." Id. This case presents no such

highly unusual circumstances.

In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff chose only to challenge the Commissioner's final

decision by arguing that what he claimed was new evidence required the Court to reverse the decision

and/or to remand for consideration of the new evidence. In the present motion, he raises additional

arguments - that the law of the case favored him, that a doctor's opinion had not properly been considered,

and that his obesity was overlooked. These, however, are precisely the types of arguments that may be

raised in a summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Magallenes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1989);

Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has cited no pertinent authority for his claim that

these issues may be raised for the first time in a motion to alter or amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff's arguments

are not persuasive.

In his reply brief, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear error because it improperly

determined that the ALJ had already considered Plaintiff's newly submitted evidence. However, regardless

of whether the ALJ considered the evidence, the Court set out specific reasons why it found that the

evidence would not have changed the ALJ's opinion. Order Denying Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. and Granting

Def.'s Cross-Mot. Summ. J., July 29, 2005, 10:6-11:27. Accordingly, this argument is also unpersuasive.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 21 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2