The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALI POORSINA, Case No. 20-cv-09122-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
TAN TSENG, et al., COMPLAINT
Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 115, 116
Poorsina’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied. “[A]mending
a judgment after its entry [i]s ‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.’”
Allstate Insurance Company v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). Poorsina does not
appeal to any of the “four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted.” Id.
Instead, Poorsina seems to argue that, as a pro se litigant, he did not understand he was required
to file an amended complaint in response to the Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. While the Court is sympathetic, Poorsina’s appeal to his pro se
status is not enough to justify relief under Rule 59(e). In any event, Poorsina’s argument that he
did not understand what he needed to do is belied by the fact that he had already amended his
complaint once before in response to an order of dismissal with leave to amend. See Dkt. Nos.
83, 84. Poorsina’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is likewise denied. Rule 15
does not allow for post-judgment amendments to the pleadings.
Even if the Court had the discretion to grant Poorsina’s request to resurrect his case, the
request would be denied because Poorsina does not offer anything new in his papers. In
particular, he does not offer up allegations that would address the deficiency identified in the
Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss: the lack of an antitrust injury. See Dkt.
No. 107.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2023 : =
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge