(PS) Parker v. JP Morgan Chase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Akika Parker, No. 2:20-cv-00455-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v.

JP Morgan Chase,

1S Defendant.

The court construes the filing at ECF No. 9 as a motion to reconsider the order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001), and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The court denies the requested relief. See 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation omitted)); Winter v. Natural Res. Def: Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (identifying the showing required of a plaintiff who seeks preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order). Similar requests filed in the future will be disregarded. /////

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE