I.

I. v. Kijakazi

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 3, 20223:20-cv-05811California994 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

DISCUSSION

23 Rule 59(e) provides that a party may file a “motion to alter or amend a judgment.” 24 Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has explained the standard for a motion under Rule 59(e) as 25 follows: 26 Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting omitted). But amending a judgment after its entry remains “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Id. 5 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2 011). This Rule “may not be used to 6 relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.