Drevaleva v. Glazer

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 21-cv-00500-HSG DREVALEVA, 8 ORDER Plaintiff, 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 93, 97, 99, 104, 106 v. JOSEPH GLAZER, et al., Defendants.

On March 14, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Dkt. No. 90. Plaintiff has since filed six motions. Dkt. Nos. 92, 93, 97, 99, 104, 106. The Court reemphasizes that this case is closed, and all pending motions are DENIED.1 No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. Non-compliance with the Court’s orders will result in the revocation of Plaintiff’s e-filing privileges. // // // // To the extent Plaintiff’s First Motion to Vacate the Order Dismissing the Case, Dkt. No. 92, is a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 or Civil Local Rule 7-9, and her motion is therefore DENIED. See American Ironworkers & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) where the movants “simply reargued their case and offered no basis for withdrawal of the [order]”); 389 Orange Street 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)); Civil L.R. 7-9 (requiring a party to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, which must specifically show 1 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants consistent with Dkt. No. 90.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: 4/11/2022 iavwoks S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 5 United States District Judge

QO 16

Z 18