Niedermeier v. Office of Baucus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff must plead such to state a retaliation claim against a former employer based on negative job references
• holding that Rule 59(e) does not permit a movant to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that Rule 59(e) does not permit a movant to “relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that Rule 59(e) motions “are disfavored and relief 3 from judgment is granted only when the moving party establishes extraordinary circumstances”
• rejecting the plaintiffs effort “to read into [Local Civil Rule 7(m) ] an exception for motions that are ‘closely intertwined’ with dispositive motions”
• denying plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion because plaintiffs “new evidence” was known to her prior to the court’s entry of judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).