Home/N.D. California/Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc

Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 1, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-08282·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ALI POORSINA, Case No. 20-cv-08282-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ALI POORSINA’S 9 Vv. OPPOSITION TO ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 23 ll Defendant.

13 On January 29, 2021, I granted defendant Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc.’s (“Peak”)

14 ] motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Ali Poorsina’s Complaint with prejudice. [Dkt. No. 21].

15 Judgment was entered and the matter was closed. [Dkt. No. 22]. On February 11, 2021, Poorsina A 16 || filed another opposition to Peak’s motion to dismiss, reiterating arguments addressed and rejected

17 inmy January 29, 2021 order. [Dkt. No. 23]. To the extent that Poorsina’s filing can be construed 18 as a motion for reconsideration, it is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a 19 district court to reconsider and amend a previous order under certain circumstances, none of which 20 exist here. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 21 Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration is appropriate if the court: “(1) is presented with newly 22 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 23 if there is an intervening change in controlling law”). Poorsina’s case before this court is closed. 25 Dated: March 1, 2021 26 iam H. Orrick 27 United States District Judge 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc (Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)