Opinion
2:22-cv-01151-KJM-DB
08-30-2022
Agus Hartono, Plaintiff, v. Yolanda Lewis, Defendant.
ORDER
Pro se defendant Yolanda Lewis moves this court to reconsider its order remanding this unlawful detainer action to state court and to stay this case pending appeal. See Mot. Recons., ECF No. 6; Mot. Stay, ECF No. 8. Ms. Lewis moved for reconsideration the day after this court issued its order, so Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) applies. See Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion “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 Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Ms. Lewis does not present this court with new evidence or point to an intervening change in controlling law. She does aver the court committed error “based on” Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y.State v. Oneida Cnty., New York, 414 U.S. 661 (1974). See Mot. Recons. at 1.
In Oneida Indian Nation, the Oneida Indian Nation sought to eject the state of New York from lands it claimed to have owned “from time immemorial.” 414 U.S. at 664. It alleged that cessations of land to New York during the eighteenth century were invalid, in part, because the United States had not consented as required by federal law. Id. at 664-65. The Supreme Court's core holding was that the Nation's claim arose under federal law. Id. at 682. Ms. Lewis does not explain the relevance of Oneida Indian Nation to this dispute, and the court is aware of no factual or legal similarities warranting further exploration.
The court denies Ms. Lewis' motion for reconsideration. Ms. Lewis' motion to stay, ECF No. 8, is moot.
This order resolves ECF Nos. 6 & 8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.