The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. 46)
On July 24, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States and found that Defendant had procured his naturalization illegally. (ECF No. 44.) On July 25, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered judgment pursuant to the order. (ECF No. 45) However, neither the order nor the judgment includes the specific relief sought by the United States in its amended complaint filed June 24, 2011. (ECF No. 15)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment of the Court to include specific relief. (ECF No. 46.) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on August 27, 2012. The United States filed a reply to the opposition on August 28, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the Court vacated the hearing on the motion and took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 49.)
On June 24, 2011, the United States filed an amended complaint. In the
complaint it requested the following relief: (1) judgment revoking and
setting aside the order admitting Defendant to United States
citizenship and canceling his Certificate of Naturalization; (2)
judgment restraining and enjoining Defendant from claiming any rights,
privileges, or advantages of a United States citizen; (3) judgment
requiring Defendant to immediately surrender his Certificate of
Naturalization; and (4) any other lawful and proper relief.*fn1
(ECF No. 15.) The United States again requested the relief in
its points and authorities in support of its motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 34 at 18.)
While the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, neither the Court's order nor the judgment specified the relief ordered. The United States now moves to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to include said relief.
III. MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
The motion to alter or amend the judgment was filed August 17, 2012, twenty-three days after judgment was entered. The motion, filed within the twenty-eight day deadline, is timely.
"Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999)). However, amending a judgment after its entry is "an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d at 1111. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is properly granted: "(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law." Id.
However, "[a] court considering a Rule 59(e) motion is not limited merely to these four situations, however." Id. A Rule 59(e) amendment may be particularly appropriate where the amendment reflects the purely clerical task of incorporating undisputed facts into the judgment. Id. (citing Molnar v. United Techs. Otis Elevator, 37 F.3d 335, 337-38 (7th Cir. 1994)). This is particularly true when the amendment sought is to have the judgment specifically reflect the relief sought in the complaint. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d at 1111-12.
Defendant opposes the motion to amend the judgment on four grounds: (1) that the motion to amend does not fall under one of the four enumerated grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion can be granted; (2) that the proposed order for summary judgment provided to the Court by the United States does not contain the requested relief, (3) that the first amended petition contains a typographical error affecting the meaning of the requested relief, and (4) that the Court in ...