Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 KENNETH LAWRENCE LENK, Case No. 20-cv-08094-BLF 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER 8 V. JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 9 MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., PROCEDURE 59%e) 10 Defendant. [Re: ECF 49] 11 12 The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal 13 || Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (ECF 49), seeking relief from the Court’s order granting in part and 14 || denying in part Defendant’s motion for prevailing party attorneys’ fees (ECF 47). The Court finds 15 || the motion suitable for decision without soliciting a response from Defendant, and without oral a 16 || argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 3 17 Under Rule 59(e), a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days 18 || after the entry of the judgment. Some district courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that Rule 19 || 59(e) cannot be used to challenge an award of attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Soares v. Lorono, No. 12- 20 CV-05979-WHO, 2015 WL 3826795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015). Even if Plaintiff’s motion 21 || may be brought under Rule 59(e), he has not identified manifest errors of law or fact, newly 22 || discovered evidence, a manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law that would 23 entitle him to relief. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) □□□□□□□□ 24 grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)). 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. 26 27 || Dated: April 18, 2022 hot ( Lhy | homer! BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge