Simmons v. Doane

Opinion

ROBERTA E. SIMMONS, Case No. 20-cv-01044-VKD

Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S FEBRUARY v. 17, 2021 FILING

JOHN DOANE, Re: Dkt. No. 32 Defendant.

On February 5, 2020, the Court granted defendant John Doane’s motion to dismiss Ms. Simmons’s amended complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment and closed this matter. Dkt. Nos. 30, 31. On February 17, 2021, Ms. Simmons filed a document in which she appears to ask the Court to reconsider her claims. Dkt. No. 32. Broadly construing Ms. Simmons’s filing as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, the Court denies Ms. Simmons’s motion. “Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Godfrey v. Warden PVSP, No. 20-01381 BLF (PR), 2020 WL 4584180, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020) (citing Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001)). “The denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b).” Id. (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc)). “A motion for unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration upon a showing of one or more of the following: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Godfrey, 2020 WL 4584180, at *2. The Court dismissed Ms. Simmons’s original and amended complaints because she failed to plead facts establishing that she has a plausible claim for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. or for personal injuries or negligence under state law, and because her claims are untimely in any event. Dkt. Nos. 18, 30. In her February 17, 2021 filing, Ms. Simmons states that she is not complaining about violations of the ADA and that the focus of her claims is the alleged “sabotage” conducted by Mr. Doane when he reportedly “jammed” a letter under the windshield wiper blade of Ms. Simmons’s car in 2014. Dkt. No. 32 at ECF p. 3, 19, 46. Additionally, Ms. Simmons indicates that although prior medical examinations failed to do so, doctors determined the exact location of her physical injuries on February 20, 2020. Id. at ECF p. 26. She also notes that she would not have read Mr. Doane’s October 23, 2014 letter but for the injuries she allegedly sustained on October 31, 2014. Id. at ECF p. 30. Ms. Simmons identifies no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error of law warranting reconsideration of the Court’s prior determination that she has not alleged sufficient facts establishing that Mr. Doane breached an existing duty of care, or that his alleged conduct was the proximate cause of Ms. Simmons’s car accident or any resulting injuries. Nor does Ms. Simmons’s February 17, 2021 filing otherwise establish a basis to grant relief from the February 5, 2021 judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Ms. Simmons’s motion for such relief therefore is

1 denied. 3 Dated: February 24, 2021 4 Vrain win. K Marche: VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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