Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Background

Kenneth Lawrence Lenk filed what the court identified as his fourth motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The motion was labeled as his third motion, but the court stated that three earlier Rule 59(e) motions had been filed in this case. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. opposed the motion, and Lenk filed a reply.

Lenk argued that Judge Beth Labson Freeman was required to withdraw from the case under 28 U.S.C. § 455. He asked the court to amend the judgment in this case, amend the judgments in three prior unsuccessful cases against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., and vacate all fee awards against him.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the motion was untimely. The judgment had been entered on November 8, 2022, while Lenk filed the Rule 59(e) motion on January 30, 2023—more than 28 days later. The court stated that Rule 59(e) requires such a motion to be filed no later than 28 days after judgment and that a late motion must be denied.

The court also observed that Lenk had previously raised and lost the same recusal arguments. A recusal motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 had been randomly reassigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, who denied the recusal motion and later denied Lenk’s request for reconsideration. The court stated that Lenk provided no legal authority allowing him to renew those arguments through a new Rule 59(e) motion. Thus, the court said the motion would have been denied even if it had been timely.

Disposition

The court denied Lenk’s Rule 59(e) motion as untimely. The opinion does not state that the court vacated or amended any judgment or fee award.