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 SECOND MOTION TO VACATE 10 DORIS NG, et al., JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. Docket No. 56

12 13 14 The plaintiff asks the Court for permission to file a second motion to vacate the judgment 15 in this case primarily for two reasons. First, the California Attorney General was not served and 16 did not appear on behalf of the defendants Department of Industrial relations (“DIR”) and Division 17 of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”). Second, the Court did not specify which causes of 18 action against DIR and DLSE were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (Docket No. 56 at 2.) 19 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 20 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 21 initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 22 law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). “Rule 60(b) provides 23 for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly- 24 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) 25 extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 26 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 /// 1 The plaintiff’s proposed motion would not meet the standard under either Rule. 2 Specifically, the plaintiff did not present new evidence, the Court did not commit clear error, there 3 was no intervening change in controlling law. The Court also disagrees that the Deputy Attorney 4 General’s appearance on behalf of DLSE was somehow “fraudulent.” (Docket No. 56 at 2.) The 5 plaintiff’s prefiling application is hereby DENIED. The Court hereby bars Plaintiff from making 6 any additional filings in this suit absent further order. 7 This order disposes of Docket No. 56. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: November 2, 2022 12 13 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27