Opinion
No. C-09-3365 EMC
08-12-2014
MONICA CLEMENS, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE
(Docket No. 74)
On February 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act and California Business& Professions Code § 17200 claims. Docket No. 69. Judgment in this action issued the same day and no notice of appeal was ever filed. Now, over four years later, Plaintiff has filed a request to file an amendment to her complaint based on new evidence. Docket No. 74.
Because a final judgment has issued in this action, a motion to amend the complaint "may be considered only if the judgment is first reopened under Rule 59 or 60." Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996). Construing Plaintiff's request as a motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60, it is nonetheless denied as untimely. Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment "must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Further, a motion for relief from a judgment under Rule 60 "must be made within a reasonable time" and, where the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff's request - filed four years after the judgment in this action - is untimely under both provisions.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request to file an amendment to her complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2014
/s/_________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States Magistrate Judge