Edwards

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS UNDER RULES 59 AND

Before me is plaintiffs motion for a new trial and/or for clarification or, in the alternative, motion for relief from the judgment. The parties have fully briefed the issues. I find no need for argument and vacate the hearing presently scheduled for January 10, 2007. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

As a threshold issue, I conclude that, because the matter was disposed of by summary judgment and not by trial, Rule 59(a) is inapplicable. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262 (9th Cir.1993); Ericsson, Inc. v. Continental Promotion Group, Inc., 2006 WL 1794750 , at *2 (D.Ariz. June 27, 2006); Lyon v. Estrella Foothills High School, 2006 WL 2640396 , at *1 (D.Ariz. Sept. 13, 2006); see also, e.g., Ioane v. Stein, 1998 WL 812251 , at *3 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 5,1998) (rejecting use of the Rule 59(a) standard where the case was adjudicated on a motion to dismiss). Rather, I will consider plaintiffs arguments as a Rule 59(e) motion for alteration or amendment of judgment. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d at 1262; Ericsson, Inc., 2006 WL 1794750 ,…