Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04137/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04137-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Respondent
Marsha A. Wharff
Respondent
Michael S. White
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL S. WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-4137 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND 

MARSHA A. WHARFF, et al. MOTION TO REMAND

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On January 24, 2007, the above-entitled action was dismissed, for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction as to defendant United States of America, and for failure to state a claim

as to defendant Marsha A. Wharff. Also on January 24, 2007, judgment was entered in

favor of defendants. 

On March 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking remand to the Superior Court of

California, County of Mendocino. However, because the entry of judgment terminated the

case in this court, the court interprets plaintiff’s motion (filed after judgment was entered) as

a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow for motions for

reconsideration. Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration of judgment may be brought

under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Hinton v. Pacific Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.

1993) (motion for reconsideration of summary judgment is appropriately brought under

Case 4:06-cv-04137-PJH Document 36 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The Civil Local Rules of this court also provide for motions for reconsideration,

"[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of

all the parties in a case." Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In this case, however, the judgment has been

entered, and the local rule therefore does not apply.

2

either rule). 

A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) must be filed within ten

days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the court granted

defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction more than 10 days

before plaintiff filed the present motion, a Rule 59(e) motion would be untimely. Where the

Rule 59(e) deadline has passed, a party seeking amendment of the judgment can move

under Rule 60(b).1

 Rule 60(b) provides, in relevant part, 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment

upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no

longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6)

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

The court finds that the motion must be DENIED because it does not satisfy any of

the Rule 60(b) factors. Plaintiff does not argue that amendment is warranted because of

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; does not point to any newlydiscovered evidence; does not claim any fraud or misrepresentation by defendants; does

not assert that the judgment is void; does not argue that the judgment should have no

prospective application; and does not raise any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment.

The focus of plaintiff’s argument is that the court should have remanded the case

instead of dismissing it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, plaintiff did not file a

Case 4:06-cv-04137-PJH Document 36 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 The court also notes that plaintiff’s 56-page motion exceeds by 29 pages the page

limit allowed under the Civil Local Rules of this court. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). 

3

motion to remand after the case was removed to this court for the second time as case No.

C-06-6884, on November 3, 2006. Moreover, plaintiff filed no written opposition to

defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2

 

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment must be

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04137-PJH Document 36 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3