Sanai v. Cardona

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYRUS SANAI, Case No. 22-cv-01818-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET 9 v. ASIDE JUDGMENT

10 GEORGE CARDONA, et al., Re: ECF No. 137 Defendants. 11

12 13 On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai, a California lawyer, initiated this action for 14 declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants George Cardona, the State Bar Chief Trial 15 Counsel, and Leah Wilson, the State Bar Executive Director, after receiving a letter notifying him 16 that the State Bar would initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 28 ¶ 17 30; ECF No. 77 ¶ 30. He filed his second amended complaint on May 22, 2023. ECF No. 77. 18 Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on July 16, 2024. 19 ECF No. 134. In so ruling, the Court held that Younger abstention required dismissal of his 20 claims. 21 Now before the Court is Sanai’s motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 137. For the 22 reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion. 23 “Where, as here, the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for 24 reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure.” Banh v. McEwan, No. C 10-5915 JSW (PR), 2012 WL 369920, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26 3, 2012). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a movant may seek relief from a final 27 judgment for six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (3) newly 1 decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the 2 judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 3 Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 Under Rule 59(e), a party may move a court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days 5 after entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Since specific grounds for a motion to amend 6 or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or 7 denying the motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal 8 quotation marks and citation omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion “is an extraordinary remedy, to be 9 used sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kaufmann v. 10 Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 Generally, there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: “(1) if such 12 motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 13 such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if 14 such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 15 intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111. 16 Sanai asks for relief from the judgment on the grounds that the Court mistakenly granted 17 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and because of new facts. ECF No. 137 at 2. “With respect to 18 mistake, a [motion for reconsideration] may seek relief from an excusable mistake on the part of a 19 party or counsel, or if the district court has made a substantive error of law or fact in its judgment 20 or order.” Bamforth v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-09483-DMR, 2022 WL 1987858, at *3 (N.D. 21 Cal. June 6, 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sanai disagrees with the 22 outcome of the Court’s dismissal order but does not identify any substantive mistake. See ECF 23 No. 137. “[M]ere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or the belief that the Court is wrong in its 24 decision are not adequate grounds for relief.” Washington v. Caropreso, No C 11-3666 LHK 25 (PR), 2013 WL 4426449, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013). Nor does Sanai’s evidence of the 26 denial of his motion for other discovery in his disciplinary proceedings change the Court’s 27 analysis. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1 have been likely to change the disposition of the case”). 2 Accordingly, Sanai’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 || Dated: September 30, 2024 5 JON S. TIGA 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28