The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD and
TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD, P.C.L.L.O.,
8:25CV95
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER
GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC., JOHN
DOES, 1-1000, and JANE DOES, 1-1000,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs Timothy L. Ashford and Timothy L.
Ashford, P.C.L.L.O.’s (together, “Ashford”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Filing
No. 65) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).1 Ashford not only requests
“that the Court amend the judgment to reverse their order granting summary judgment to
the defendants”2 but also seeks to relitigate every adverse ruling made along the way. He
continues to argue this Court lacked jurisdiction and defendants Google LLC and Alphabet
Inc. should have been sanctioned for removing this case from state to federal court.
Though Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend are disfavored, district courts retain
“broad discretion in determining whether to grant them. Ryan v. Ryan, 889 F.3d 499,
507-08 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Briehl v. Gen. Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623, 629 (8th Cir.
1999)). Such motions are not a simple opportunity for a do over. They serve the limited
function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Akpovi v. Douglas, 43 F.4th 832, 837 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ryan, 889 F.3d
1Ashford has also filed a “reply motion” to alter or amend judgment under
Rule 59(e) (Filing No. 67) which adds nothing to the analysis.
2Ashford repeatedly refers to the Court “granting summary judgment.” To be clear,
the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), not summary judgment.
at 507). Rule 59(e) motions “cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal
theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of
judgment.” Jd.
Ashford summarily claims his motions are based on “grounds of clear errors or law,
clear errors of fact and manifest injustice.” (Filing Nos. 65-1, 68). In reality, they are
nothing more than an attempt to “relitigate old matters” he has already lost. Exxon Ship.
Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (explaining that is not the purpose of
Rule 59(e)). Having thoroughly reviewed Ashford’s motions and the parties’ submissions,
the Court finds Ashford has failed to present adequate grounds to warrant reconsideration.
The Court carefully considered and rejected all Ashford’s arguments in its previous
decisions (Filing Nos. 63, 62, 23, 60, 56, 17). As such, the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment (Filing No. 65) and “Reply Motion” (Filing No 67) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of March 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge