Drevaleva v. Ng

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Case No. 22-cv-01984-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. PRE-FILING APPLICATION TO FILE THE FIRST MOTION TO VACATE 10 DORIS NG, et al., JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. Docket No. 52

12 13 14 The plaintiff asks the Court for permission to file her a first motion to vacate the judgment 15 in this case primarily because she “erroneously asserted that the DLSE had been served with a 16 Summons and with [her] Original December 29, 2016 Complaint No. 3:16-cv07414-LB.” 17 (Docket No. 52 at 2.) 18 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 19 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 20 initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 21 law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). “Rule 60(b) provides 22 for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly- 23 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) 24 extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 25 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 26 /// 27 /// 1 The plaintiff’s proposed motion would not meet the standard under either Rule. 2 Specifically, the plaintiff’s error was neither material to the Court’s ruling nor newly discovered 3 evidence. The plaintiff’s prefiling application is hereby DENIED. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 52. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: October 19, 2022 9 10 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27