Dunn v. Noble Credit Union

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

11 ALANA DUNN, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0561 JLT SKO ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS ) TO THE ORDER CLOSING THE CASE, 13 v. ) CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR ) AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL 14 NOBLE CREDIT UNION, et al., ) RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 13) ) 16

17 Alana Dunn proceeded pro se in this action against Noble Credit Union, Fresno based Credit 18 Union, and Fresno Base Noble Credit Union. The Court found Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable 19 claim invoking the Court’s jurisdiction and dismissed the action on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 11.) The 20 Court entered judgment the same date. (Doc. 12.) Following the entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed a 21 document entitled “Objection without prejudice directing the clerk of court to close the case signed by 22 District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.” (Doc. 13.) Because Plaintiff filed the objection to the order 23 within 28 days of the final judgment, the Court construes the document as a motion for reconsideration 24 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 26 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered 27 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood v. 28 Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted) (emphasis in 1 || original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finalit 2 || and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9tl 3 || Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound 4 || discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) 5 || (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). 6 Plaintiff does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning her failure to state a 7 || cognizable claim that invokes the federal court’s jurisdiction. Rather, Plaintiffrecounts events that 8 || seemingly lead to the filing of her initial complaint. (See, e.g., Doc. 13 at 1-5.) Plaintiff also discuss 9 || actions by the government, such as the “Department of Justice’s focus on the private equity sector in 10 recent years,” the CARES Act, and loans under the “Paycheck Protection Program.” (Jd. at 6-9.) 11 || Finally, Plaintiff discusses the privilege of attorney-client communications and the importance of due 12 || process. Ud. at 10-26, 28-29.) These topics do not— in any manner—address the findings of the Cov 13 || that: (1) Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim in her second amended complaint, and (2) further 14 || leave to amend was futile because Plaintiff was previously granted two opportunities to establish this 15 || Court’s jurisdiction and failed to do so. (See Doc. 11 at 1-2; Doc. 9.) 16 Plaintiff fails to identify any newly discovered evidence, show the Court committed a clear 17 || error in evaluating the allegations in her SAC, or argue an intervening change in controlling law 18 || necessitates an amendment of the Court’s order. See Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Plaintiff's general 19 || objections to the dismissal are insufficient. Cromer v. Songer, 2016 WL 3351408, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 20 || 15, 2016) (disagreement with the Court’s decision is insufficient to warrant reconsideration). 21 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiffs objection, construed as motion 22 || under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED. The action shall remain closed. 23 25 ll Dated: _ August 25, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28