Ye-Kyoung Kim v. University of Guam, et al.

Summary

The District Court of Guam denied Ye-Kyoung Kim’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment dismissing her amended Title VII and ADEA claims against the University of Guam and related defendants. The court held that Kim had not shown newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or clear error, and concluded that her case remained dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The motion to alter or amend judgment was properly denied because Plaintiff presented neither newly discovered evidence nor an intervening change in controlling law and failed to show that the original ruling was clearly erroneous.
2. The court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice while allowing amendment in Analista because the cases were not similarly situated and Plaintiff failed to follow the court's amendment instructions.
3. The court did not previously hold that Plaintiff's retaliation theory was time barred; it held that Plaintiff failed to allege administrative exhaustion and sufficient facts establishing a causal connection between prior protected activity and the failure to hire.
4. Reasserting arguments that the court had already considered did not establish clear error or warrant Rule 59(e) relief, and the court continued to deem the proposed amendments futile.
5. The court would not consider Plaintiff's new arguments concerning alleged factual errors and the EEOC position statement because reply briefs are for replying, not for raising new arguments that could have been presented earlier.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff satisfied the standards for altering or amending the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the court clearly erred or abused its discretion by dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice while permitting amendment in another case involving some of the same defendants.
3. Whether the court mischaracterized its prior ruling as finding Plaintiff's retaliation theory time barred and failed to consider prior acts as background evidence.
4. Whether Plaintiff's renewed arguments concerning the sufficiency and futility of her Title VII and ADEA claims demonstrated clear error.
5. Whether the court was required to consider new factual and legal arguments raised for the first time in Plaintiff's reply brief.

Disposition

other