Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Background

Kenneth Lawrence Lenk filed two post-judgment motions while representing himself: a request for appointment of counsel and a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend or alter the amended judgment. The court stated that this was Lenk’s fourth unsuccessful lawsuit against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. since he left the company in 2013.

The court had dismissed the lawsuit on November 10, 2021, concluding that it was barred by collateral estoppel, barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and failed to state a claim. The court later awarded Monolithic Power Systems $25,215.30 in attorneys’ fees and costs and, on November 8, 2022, entered an amended judgment incorporating that award. Lenk’s appeals of the judgment, the fee award, and the denial of an earlier motion for relief from judgment were dismissed by the Ninth Circuit for failure to prosecute.

Request for Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that people generally have no right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. The court must consider the person’s ability to explain the claims and the likelihood of success on the merits.

Because Lenk had litigated the action without paying the filing fee, the court presumed that he qualified as indigent. It nevertheless found that the other considerations did not support appointment of counsel: Lenk was able to articulate his claims, and he was unlikely to prevail on his pending Rule 59(e) motion. The court therefore denied the request for counsel.

Rule 59(e) Motion

Rule 59(e) allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the judgment is entered. Lenk timely filed this motion and argued that the court should reconsider the amended judgment because it had failed to consider his opposition to Monolithic Power Systems’ request to enter that judgment.

The court agreed that it had failed to consider Lenk’s timely opposition. It explained, however, that considering the opposition would not have changed the result. The court’s request for additional briefing had focused on whether it had authority to enter an amended judgment about a year after the original judgment. Lenk’s opposition did not address that authority; instead, it challenged Monolithic Power Systems’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs.

The court stated that the company’s entitlement to fees and costs had already been decided in the attorneys’ fees order, and that Lenk’s appeal from that order had been dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court treated that order as final and stated that Lenk had not identified authority showing that the court lacked power to amend the judgment to reflect the final fee and cost award.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Lenk’s Request for Counsel and denied Lenk’s Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The order terminated both motions, ECF 80 and ECF 81.