Legal Opinion
Edwards v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 5, 2007No. C 05-3076 BZPublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS UNDER RULES 59 AND 60
ZIMMERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before me is plaintiffs motion for a new trial and/or for clarification or, in the alternative, motion for relief from the judgment. The parties have fully briefed the issues. I find no need for argument and vacate the hearing presently scheduled for January 10, 2007. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is DENIED. 1
As a threshold issue, I conclude that, because the matter was disposed of by summary judgment and not by trial, Rule 59(a) is inapplicable. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- 389 Orange Street Partners v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Brenda Pickern Floyd Smyth Paul Heard, and Jerry Doran v. Holiday Quality Foods IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.