Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-08282
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Poorsina v. Peak Foreclosure Services, Judge Orrick denied reconsideration of the dismissal, leaving the case closed.
Ali Poorsina, whose request to reconsider the dismissal of his case was denied; Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc., whose dismissal ruling remained in place.
What happened
Poorsina v. Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc. involved a filing by pro se plaintiff Ali Poorsina after the court dismissed his complaint with prejudice and entered judgment.
Poorsina filed another opposition repeating arguments the court had already considered and rejected. The court treated the filing as a request to reconsider the dismissal and denied it.
Judge William H. Orrick ruled that none of the grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) existed. The case remained closed.
The detailed version
- Poorsina v. Peak Forclosure Services, Inc · No. 3:20-cv-08282
- William Orrick
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
On January 29, 2021, the court granted Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc.’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Ali Poorsina’s complaint with prejudice. Judgment was entered, and the case was closed.
On February 11, 2021, Poorsina filed another opposition to Peak’s motion to dismiss. The filing repeated arguments addressed and rejected in the January 29 order.
Ruling
The court considered whether Poorsina’s filing could be treated as a motion for reconsideration. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), reconsideration may be appropriate based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court found that none of those circumstances existed and denied the motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Poorsina’s case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.