1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALI POORSINA, Case No. 20-cv-08282-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ALI POORSINA’S 9 Vv. OPPOSITION TO ORDER DISMISSING CASE 10 PEAK FORCLOSURE SERVICES, INC, Re: Dkt. No. 23 ll Defendant.

13 On January 29, 2021, I granted defendant Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc.’s (“Peak”)

14 |] motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Ali Poorsina’s Complaint with prejudice. [Dkt. No. 21].

15 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

17 || inmy January 29, 2021 order. [Dkt. No. 23]. To the extent that Poorsina’s filing can be construed 18 as a motion for reconsideration, it is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a 19 district court to reconsider and amend a previous order under certain circumstances, none of which 20 || exist here. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS Inc.,

(9th 21 || Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration is appropriate if the court: “(1) is presented with newly 22 || discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 23 || if there is an intervening change in controlling law”). Poorsina’s case before this court is closed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: March 1, 2021 26 iam H. Orrick 27 United States District Judge 28