(PS) Parker v. JP Morgan Chase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Akika Parker, No. 2:20-cv-00455-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. JP Morgan Chase, 1S Defendant. 16 The court construes the filing at ECF No. 9 as a motion to reconsider the order adopting 18 the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001), and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The court denies the requested relief. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 23 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 24 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation omitted)); Winter 25 v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555…