Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Aparna VASHISHT-ROTA, Case No.: 20-cv-0321-AGS-KSC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RECONSIDERATION MOTION 5 v. (ECF 263), STRIKING FILING 6 HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, (ECF 318), AND DENYING AS MOOT et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 7 Defendants. STRIKE (ECF 319) 8 9 This Court previously dismissed all plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s claims with 10 prejudice and ordered her to file nothing further “except a motion for reconsideration or 11 notice of appeal.” (ECF 234, at 18.) Since then, Vashisht-Rota has docketed five filings 12 styled as “motions for reconsideration.” (See ECF 237, 239, 244, 245, 263.) The Court 13 found “no basis to reconsider” the first (ECF 240, at 3 (denying ECF 237)); no “issues for 14 reconsideration” in the second (id. (denying ECF 239)); and that the third and fourth did 15 “not seek reconsideration of any ruling” (ECF 259, at 2–3 (denying ECF 244, 245)). This 16 motion (ECF 263) is the fifth and final of the series, and it is similarly unavailing. 17 Although Vashisht-Rota categorized this filing on the docket as a “motion for 18 reconsideration,” she does not identify any previous order she would like reexamined. 19 Rather, the motion explores novel legal theories and arguments seeking apparently new 20 relief—for the Court to “void” judgments entered against her by a Utah state court, on the 21 strength of a California labor statute that has been in place for years. (Id. at 15.) 22 Even if that were possible, reconsideration motions “may not be used to raise 23 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 24 raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 25 Setting aside that Vashisht-Rota has identified no previous ruling on which this motion 26 should operate, she has presented no “newly discovered evidence,” no intelligible argument 27 that the court “committed clear error,” and no proof of “an intervening change in the 28 controlling law.” Id. The reconsideration motion (ECF 263) is therefore DENIED. To the 1 || extent her motion is construed as anything other than one for reconsideration, it is denied 2 || for having been filed in contravention of the Court’s order. (See ECF 234, at 18.) 3 Additionally, the Clerk is DIRECTED to strike, and the Court will disregard, the 4 || purported “amended complaint” Vashisht-Rota recently filed without leave. (See ECF 318; 5 R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).) Defendants’ motion to strike that filing (ECF 319) is DENIED 6 || AS MOOT. The Court has repeatedly cautioned Vashisht-Rota that no additional filings 7 || would be accepted in this matter. (See ECF 234, at 18; ECF 238, at 1; ECF 243; ECF 302, 8 2 (“Until the Court directs otherwise, all other filings in this case—regardless of how 9 || styled—will be disregarded and stricken.”’).) That order still stands. Moreover, no further 10 hearing dates will be given to Vashisht-Rota for motions in this closed case, since none 11 || would be heard anyway. 12 Vashisht-Rota has already appealed this Court’s order dismissing all her claims with 13 prejudice. (See ECF 235.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed (see ECF 265) and denied 14 |/reconsideration (see ECF 306). This ruling resolves the matter’s last outstanding merits 15 ||issue. If defendants wish to renew their motion for relief from vexatious litigation (see 16 || ECF 228, 305), any renewed motion must be filed by May 3, 2024. Other than a single 17 response brief opposing any such motion—of no more than 25 pages in length (see CivLR 18 || 7.1(h)}—no further filings from Vashisht-Rota will be entertained in this closed case. 19 || Dated: February 21, 2024 20 = f 1 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28