Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07576/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07576-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

AUDREY L. KIMNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARGARET A. POISSANT, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-07576-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Re: Dkt. No. 14 

 On January 29, 2020, this Court determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented 

Plaintiff Audrey Kimner from proceeding with her case and dismissed certain Defendants from the 

action. See Dkt. 13. The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint as to the 

one Defendant not affected by Rooker-Feldman. Id. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff Audrey 

Kimner filed a Motion to Vacate, which asks the Court to vacate its decision to release certain 

Defendants. Dkt. 14. Thus, in essence, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its earlier ruling. 

Accordingly, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration. See Erickson 

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (discussing the lower standard for pro se plaintiffs, namely that 

they are held to “less stringent standards” with respect to pleadings). 

 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 

the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 

reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 

interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 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 Californi

a

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

 Plaintiff has not established that the standard for reconsideration is met. Plaintiff has not 

shown a change in law, clear error, or the emergence of new material facts. Rather, Plaintiff’s 

motion to vacate focuses on the same factual allegations as Plaintiff’s earlier motions. Compare 

Dkt. 14 at 2 (discussing how Defendants violated her rights), with Dkt. 10 at 2 (same). 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Plaintiff may still file an amended complaint as to Ms. Poissant by February 28, 2020. 

The amended complaint must cure the deficiencies noted in this Order or the Court will dismiss 

Plaintiff’s claim(s) against Ms. Poissant. Before filing an amended complaint, this Court strongly 

urges Plaintiff to seek assistance from the Pro Se Program 

(https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj). The Federal Pro Se Program provides free 

information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The program 

is located in Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse, and is available by 

appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The Program can also be reached by 

calling (408) 297-1480. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2