Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Belinda K. and J.H., Her Minor Son v. Yolanda Baldovinos

August 7, 2012

BELINDA K. AND J.H., HER MINOR SON,
PETITIONERS,
v.
YOLANDA BALDOVINOS, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OR JUDGMENT UNDER FRCP 59(e) AND DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER OR JUDGMENT UNDER FRCP 60(b) (re: dkt #: 238, 240, 241, 242, 253, 255, 256, 258)

Petitioner Belinda K. ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for reconsideration of this Court's Order Denying Petitioner's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Respondents' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 20 See ECF No. 241 ("Motion for Reconsideration"). The Court finds this matter appropriate for 21 resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing set for August 9, 2012. See 22 Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' submissions and the Court's prior ruling, the 23 Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 24

I.BACKGROUND

This case concerns state court dependency proceedings concerning Petitioner's son, J.H., an Indian child as defined by the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. 27 ("ICWA"). With the assistance of appointed pro bono counsel, Petitioner brought this petition 28 pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1914, alleging various violations of ICWA in her son's dependency proceedings and seeking invalidation of several state court orders. See ECF No. 73 (Order 2 Appointing Pro Bono Counsel); ECF 170 ("First Am. Petition"). On February 13, 2012, the Court 3 issued an Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Respondents' 4 Motion for Summary Judgment ("Summary Judgment Order"), disposing of the entire action in 5 full.*fn1 See ECF No. 232. The facts of this case can be found in the Court's February 13, 2012 6 Pursuant to the Court's February 13, 2012 Order, Judgment was entered in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner on February 21, 2012, and the case was terminated. That same 9 day, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Summary 10 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, timely filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), prompting the Ninth Circuit to issue an order holding the appellate proceedings in abeyance 13 pending this Court's resolution of the motion for reconsideration. See ECF No. 241 (Motion for 14 Reconsideration); ECF No. 269 (Ninth Cir. Order). 15

17 judicial notice, as well as several administrative motions to file documents under seal. 18

240 (sealing motion); ECF No. 241 (motion for reconsideration filed under seal in its entirety); (2) 20 a request for judicial notice in support of her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 255 (sealing 21 motion); ECF No. 259 (Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN")); and (3) a second request for judicial 22 notice in support of her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 253 (sealing motion); ECF No. 23

Summary Judgment Order, see ECF No. 232 & 233, and will not be recounted here. 7

Judgment Order and All Related Interlocutory Orders. ECF No. 236. On February 27, 2012,

II.MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

In connection with her motion for reconsideration, Petitioner has filed two requests for Specifically, Petitioner seeks to file under seal: (1) her motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 19 257 (Second Request for Judicial Notice ("2d RJN")).*fn2

2 for Judicial Notice conform to the Court's prior rulings in this case concerning redactions, see ECF 3 No. 222, and are narrowly tailored to seal only the minor's identity and confidential information 4 that would reasonably lead to the minor's identity. Accordingly, Petitioner's motions to file these 5 documents under seal (ECF Nos. 255 and 253) are GRANTED. Petitioner shall publicly re-file 6

However, Petitioner's request to file her motion for reconsideration under seal in its entirety 8 is overbroad and is not narrowly tailored to seal only the minor's identity and confidential 9 information that would reasonably lead to the minor's identity. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to 10 file her motion for reconsideration under seal (ECF No. 240) is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner shall submit a new, narrowly tailored motion to file portions of her motion for reconsideration under seal within 14 days of the date of this Order. Petitioner must comply with 13 the requirements set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5. 14 A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may appropriately be brought under 16 either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 17 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868 (1989)). The district court generally 19 applies the same analysis under both rules, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See 20 60(b)); Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1441 (discussing Rule 59(e)). 22

23 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 24 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.