Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-08094
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Judge Gilliam denied Lenk’s motion to reconsider the refusal to disqualify Judge Freeman.
The ruling affected Kenneth Lawrence Lenk’s request for reconsideration and left the earlier denial of his motion to disqualify Judge Beth Labson Freeman in place.
What happened
In Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Kenneth Lawrence Lenk asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to disqualify Judge Beth Labson Freeman.
Lenk argued that the court had not considered all the facts and evidence he presented. The court explained that reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy and that disagreement with the court’s conclusions is not enough.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion for reconsideration because Lenk did not meet the required standard.
The detailed version
- Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-08094
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Kenneth Lawrence Lenk moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying his motion to disqualify United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman from the case.
Reconsideration standard
Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after judgment is entered. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. It said reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error by the court, or an intervening change in controlling law.
Arguments and ruling
Lenk argued that the court had not considered all the alleged facts and evidence he presented. The court concluded that he had not met the high standard for reconsideration. It explained that disagreement with the court’s conclusions or legal analysis is not enough. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.