(PS) Parker v. JP Morgan Chase

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Akika Parker, No. 2:20-cv-00455-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. JP Morgan Chase, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The court construes the filing at ECF No. 9 as a motion to reconsider the order adopting 18 | the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 | 59(e), see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 20 | 2001), and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The court denies the 21 | requested relief. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) 22 | “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 23 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 24 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation omitted)); Winter 25 | v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (identifying the showing required of a 26 | plaintiff who seeks preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order). Similar 27 | requests filed in the future will be disregarded. 28 | /////

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: April 26, 2021. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE