Roshan v. Lawrence
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-01235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Roshan v. Lawrence, Judge Tigar denied Roshan’s motion to alter the June 17, 2024 judgment because it repeated arguments the court had rejected.
Peyman Roshan’s motion to alter or amend the June 17, 2024 judgment was denied. The opinion does not describe the underlying judgment or its effect on the parties.
What happened
In Roshan v. Lawrence, Peyman Roshan asked the court to change or amend its June 17, 2024 judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the judgment’s original basis.
Roshan relied on Rule 59(e), which allows a party to ask a court to change a judgment in limited circumstances, such as a serious legal or factual error, newly available evidence, serious unfairness, or a change in controlling law. The court said Roshan’s motion repeated arguments that had already been rejected.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Roshan’s motion because Roshan had not shown an adequate basis for changing the judgment under Rule 59(e).
The detailed version
- Roshan v. Lawrence · No. 4:21-cv-01235
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 20, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Peyman Roshan moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the Court’s June 17, 2024 judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the basis for that earlier judgment.
Legal standard
Rule 59(e) permits a party to seek alteration or amendment of a judgment within 28 days after the judgment is entered. The court explained that this is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. It identified four general grounds for granting such a motion: correcting a clear legal or factual error, considering newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, preventing serious unfairness, or addressing an intervening change in controlling law.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Roshan’s motion repeated arguments that the court had already rejected. Because the motion did not establish an adequate basis for relief under Rule 59(e), the court concluded that it did not need to revisit its prior determinations.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Roshan’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The order states only that the motion was denied; it does not add a separate prejudice qualification.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.