Opinion
2:20-mc-00273-TLN-KJN
09-28-2021
JOSEPH B. ELFAR, a/k/a YOUSSEF FAR, Petitioner, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A. and FAY SERVICING, LLC, Respondents.
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Joseph B. Elfar's (“Petitioner”) “Motion for Leave to File Addendum.” (ECF No. 16.) On December 3, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein recommending dismissal of this action as “frivolous.” (ECF No. 5.) The findings and recommendations cautioned Petitioner that “any further such frivolous filings may subject him to sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the court.” Id. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner requested an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6), which was subsequently granted (ECF No. 7). Petitioner never objected. On February 11, 2021, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations and entered judgment closing the case. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.)
On March 5, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant “Motion for Leave to File Addendum, ” which this Court construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (ECF No. 16.) Petitioner “direct[s] the [presiding judge] . . . to retract and rescind ‘Orders' [d]ated December] 3, 2020 and February] 9, 2021 . . . and to provide a responsive reply to [his] statements and questions to findings of fact and conclusions of law.” (ECF No. 16 at 1.)
Pursuant to “Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Petitioner filed several notices with the Court, all involving the same facts that were the basis for the originally denied claim. (See ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18.) Petitioner's attached notices and the instant motion fail to provide any information or new evidence that will change the outcome of this case.
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's request (ECF No. 16). The Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. Petitioner is again cautioned that additional frivolous filings may subject him to sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Motion for Leave to File Addendum (ECF No. 16) with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.