Poorsina v. Zhang
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-09119
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Poorsina v. Zhang, Judge Spero denied reconsideration because Poorsina did not show his new evidence was previously unavailable.
Ali Poorsina’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving the earlier dismissal of his complaint and the judgment in place. The opinion identifies Xiaosong Zhang and other defendants as the opposing parties.
What happened
In Poorsina v. Zhang, Ali Poorsina asked the court to reconsider its earlier order dismissing his complaint without permission to amend because it found no federal jurisdiction over his claims.
The court ruled that the request was too late under the local rule because judgment had already been entered. Treating it instead as a request to set aside the judgment, the court found that Poorsina had not shown that his claimed new evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable effort, and denied the motion.
Judge Joseph C. Spero issued the order on May 6, 2021.
The detailed version
- Poorsina v. Zhang · No. 3:20-cv-09119
- Joseph Spero
- May 6, 2021
Background
Ali Poorsina moved for reconsideration of the court’s March 31, 2021 order. That earlier order granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Poorsina’s complaint without leave to amend because the court found no federal jurisdiction over his claims. The court had also entered judgment.
Analysis
The court first held that, to the extent Poorsina sought reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the request was untimely. That rule requires a request for permission to file a reconsideration motion before judgment is entered, and judgment had already been entered in this case.
The court also considered the motion as a request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) can provide relief based on newly discovered evidence that could not previously have been obtained with reasonable diligence. But a Rule 60 motion cannot be used to reargue points already made, or points that could have been made, against the original motion.
Although Poorsina described his evidence as newly discovered, he did not show that he could not have obtained it before the motions to dismiss were decided through reasonable diligence. The court also concluded that the evidence did not establish a proper basis to reargue points that Poorsina had already made or could have made in opposition to the motions to dismiss.
Disposition
The court denied Poorsina’s motion for reconsideration. Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order on May 6, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.