Ramachandran

I. BACKGROUND

1 The pertinent facts of this case have been described in detail in prior orders and the Court 2 will not recount them here. See e.g., Dkt. Nos. 82, 199, 336, 391. 3 Mr. Ramachandran asserts three grounds for relief from, or amendment of, the judgment: 4 First, he argues under Rule 60(b)(1) that this Court’s June 6, 2024 order contains a mistake of law 5 in its application of claim preclusion based on the state court decision in Ramachandran v. City of 6 Los Altos, No. 21CV391414 (Santa Clara Super. Ct). Second, he argues under Rule 60(b)(2) that 7 new evidence discovered after the filing of his opposition to defendants’ motion for judgment on 8 the pleadings must be considered. Third, he argues under Rules 59(e), 60(b)(3), and 60(d)(3) that 9 defendants have engaged in fraud.2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

11 Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later 12 than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 13 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 14 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v.…