Malberg v. Cashen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Malberg v. Cashen, Judge Freeman denied Malberg’s motion to change the judgment because he showed no recognized basis.
The ruling affected Martin Malberg’s request to change the judgment; the defendants’ opposition prevailed, and the court did not alter the judgment.
What happened
In Malberg v. Cashen, Martin Malberg asked the court to change the initial judgment, saying it may have relied on claims, declarations, and evidence in a format the court did not accept. The court treated his request as a motion under Rule 59(e), and the defendants opposed it.
The court explained that this type of motion may be granted for a serious legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. Malberg did not identify any of those grounds or point to specific claims, declarations, or evidence that the court had improperly rejected.
The court concluded that Malberg had not shown that changing the judgment was necessary or that dismissing the suit was manifestly unjust. Judge Freeman therefore denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment.
The detailed version
- Malberg v. Cashen · No. 5:22-cv-01788
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Martin Malberg filed a motion asking the court to alter the initial judgment. He stated that the judgment may have been based on claims, declarations of rights, and evidence presented in a format the court did not accept. The defendants opposed the motion. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Legal standard
The court construed Malberg’s motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after judgment is entered. The court stated that this extraordinary remedy may be granted when necessary to correct a serious legal or factual error, consider newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, prevent manifest injustice, or account for an intervening change in controlling law. The court also noted that other grounds may apply in unusual circumstances, but such relief is used sparingly.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Malberg had not shown a basis for relief. He did not identify a specific legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, or intervening change in the law. Although he referred to claims, declarations, and evidence that the court allegedly had not accepted, he identified no material item that the court had improperly rejected. The court also found that he had not shown that dismissing the suit was manifestly unjust.
Disposition
The court denied Malberg’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.