Simmons v. Doane
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-01044
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Simmons v. Doane, Judge Demarchi denied Simmons’s request to reconsider dismissal of her claims under the ADA and state law.
Roberta E. Simmons’s request to change or obtain relief from the judgment was denied; the opinion states that the earlier judgment dismissing her claims remained in place.
What happened
Simmons v. Doane began with the court’s dismissal of Roberta E. Simmons’s amended complaint against John Doane without leave to amend, followed by entry of judgment and closure of the case.
Simmons later filed a document asking the court to reconsider her claims. The court treated it as a request to change the judgment or provide relief from it. She argued that her claims focused on alleged sabotage involving a letter placed on her car, and referred to later medical findings about her injuries.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied the motion. The court found that Simmons identified no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear legal error, and did not establish a basis for relief from the judgment under the cited procedural rules.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. Doane · No. 5:20-cv-01044
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
On February 5, 2020, the court granted John Doane’s motion to dismiss Roberta E. Simmons’s amended complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment, and closed the case. The opinion states that the court had dismissed Simmons’s original and amended complaints because she had not pleaded facts establishing a plausible claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or for personal injuries or negligence under state law. The court also found that her claims were untimely.
Simmons’s Filing
On February 17, 2021, Simmons filed a document that appeared to ask the court to reconsider her claims. The court broadly treated the filing as a motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the judgment, or under Rule 60(b) for relief from the judgment.
Simmons stated that she was not asserting ADA violations and that her claims focused on alleged “sabotage” by Doane, including his reported placement of a letter under the windshield wiper of her car in 2014. She also stated that doctors had determined the precise location of her physical injuries on February 20, 2020, after earlier examinations had not done so. She further stated that she would not have read Doane’s October 23, 2014 letter without the injuries she allegedly suffered on October 31, 2014.
Legal Standard
The court explained that reconsideration after a final judgment may be sought under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Rule 59(e) generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) permits relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.
Ruling
The court found that Simmons identified no new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error that justified reconsidering the earlier ruling. It also found that her filing did not establish another basis for relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), including that she had not alleged sufficient facts showing that Doane breached an existing duty of care or that his alleged conduct proximately caused her car accident or resulting injuries.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi therefore denied Simmons’s motion for relief from the February 5, 2021 judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.