Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALI POORSINA, Case No. 20-cv-08282-WHO

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE ALI POORSINA’S

Vv. OPPOSITION TO ORDER

DISMISSING CASE

PEAK FORCLOSURE SERVICES, INC,

Re: Dkt. No. 23 ll Defendant.

On January 29, 2021, I granted defendant Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc.’s (“Peak”) ] motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Ali Poorsina’s Complaint with prejudice. [Dkt. No. 21].

Judgment was entered and the matter was closed. [Dkt. No. 22]. On February 11, 2021, Poorsina A 16 || filed another opposition to Peak’s motion to dismiss, reiterating arguments addressed and rejected inmy January 29, 2021 order. [Dkt. No. 23]. To the extent that Poorsina’s filing can be construed as a motion for reconsideration, it is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order under certain circumstances, none of which exist here. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration is appropriate if the court: “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law”). Poorsina’s case before this court is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2021 iam H. Orrick

United States District Judge