(PS) RuBang v. Brooks

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ERIC R. BROOKS; KELLER WILLIAMS, Defendants.

18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gonzalo R. Rubang, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel and Motion to Stay. (ECF Nos. 50, 52.) On February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations herein recommending dismissing Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint without prejudice and closing this case. (ECF No. 34.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35) and subsequently filed a fifth amended complaint (ECF No. 36.). On March 24, 2020, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations after reviewing Plaintiff’s filings and entered judgment closing the case. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) Plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in turn affirmed this Court’s decision. (ECF Nos. 42, 46.)

1 On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Compel” (ECF No. | 50), followed by a “Motion to Stay” on September 22, 2021. (ECF No. 52.) In his motion to | compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendants to produce Plaintiff's mortgage documents.

4 | (ECF 50.) Plaintiff further requests the Court to stay the case to “lead to more discoveries of | valuable [information].” (ECF No. 52 at 1.)

6 This case is closed. In the event Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its prior order, || reconsideration is not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (Pursuant to “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.”). As to his motions to compel and to stay, because this case is closed and a || reopening of this case is not appropriate, “it is apparent that [P]laintiff will not [be] able to || succeed on the merits of his claims.” Driver v. U.S. Special Master, No. 1:17-cv-00202-DAD- | BAM-PC, 2020 WL 902271, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020).

15 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motions to Compel | and to Stay (ECF Nos. 50, 52) with prejudice.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 | Date: October 7, 2021 0 {) □ /) 21 “ Mp / 22 Troy L. Nunley ] 73 United States District Judge