UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
February 9, 2012
JASON CABOT, PLAINTIFF,
STEPHANE COMBET-BLANC; PAULA ABRAHIMI, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
Order DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment 
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice on January 12, 2012. Plaintiff asks this court to set aside judgment and to allow Plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether Defendants have traveled out of state during the relevant tolling period-so that Plaintiff can determine whether his claims may be considered timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy, and 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. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Court finds it is highly unlikely that Plaintiff would be able to
account for two or three months of time through equitable tolling,
i.e., the time between May 5, 2010 and August 9, 2010.*fn1
Instead, this is a last ditch effort by the Plaintiff in a
case of too little, too late. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is
IT IS SO ORDERED.