West v. Sunnyvale/Santa Clara El Pollo Loco et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES WEST,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNNYVALE/SANTA CLARA EL
POLLO LOCO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-01840-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 75
On October 21, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
entered judgment in favor of Defendants, and closed the case. Dkt. No. 72. On November 18,
2025, pro se Plaintiff James West filed two motions to set aside the judgment under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Dkt. Nos. 74, 75.
Under Rule 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that
such motions may only be granted in limited circumstances: “(1) the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial
decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” See
Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).
Rule 60(b), in turn, permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment where one or more
of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence, which by reasonable diligence could not have been discovered sooner;
(3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; and
(6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall
provision” that “has been used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and
Case 4:24-cv-01840-HSG Document 93 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely
action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790,
797 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s arguments under Rule 59 and under Rule 60 are largely the same and the
Court considers them collectively. Compare Dkt. No. 74, with Dkt. No. 75. Plaintiff offers
several reasons why the Court should reconsider its summary judgment order, but the Court is not
persuaded. At bottom, Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against and refused service
based on his race. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 6–7. Critically, however, Plaintiff still offers no
evidence that Defendants acted with discriminatory motive.
First, Plaintiff states that he has obtained newly discovered evidence, including body
camera footage from the City of Sunnyvale Police Department when they were called to the
Sunnyvale El Pollo Loco restaurant location in 2022. See Dkt. No. 74 at 3–5; Dkt. No. 75 at 5–7.
According to Plaintiff, he received this footage after briefing on summary judgment was complete,
and less than two weeks before the Court’s order on the motion for summary judgment. Id. at 3.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff suggests that he was diligent in pursuing this footage but could not
have obtained it sooner because the police department intentionally delayed the production based
on hostility toward Plaintiff. See id. at 3; see also Dkt. No. 86 at 3, 6–7. The Court need not
determine whether Plaintiff actually acted diligently in pursuing this footage, however, because it
does not alter the Court’s summary judgment analysis.
Plaintiff argues that despite claiming in the complaint that El Pollo Loco employees called
the police on him in March 2024, the footage actually indicates that the police were called in
March 2022.1 See Dkt. No. 74 at 5–6. Plaintiff claims that he made a “typographical” error in the
complaint. Id. But rather than undermining Plaintiff’s own credibility, he suggests that this
somehow undermines the credibility of Defendants, and raises a factual dispute about the year of
the incident. See id.; see also Dkt. No. 86 at 4, 7. But the year of the incident was not material to
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff does not appear to provide the actual footage for the Court’s
consideration, just the paperwork containing an expired link that he received from the Sunnyvale
Police Department. See Dkt. No. 74-1, Ex. 2. Nevertheless, for purposes of these motions, the
Court accepts Plaintiff’s characterization of the footage.
Case 4:24-cv-01840-HSG Document 93 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
the Court’s order granting summary judgment. Moreover, Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that
Petra Ramos was there on the day of the 2022 incident and appears in the body camera footage.
See id. at 4. In the declaration from Ms. Ramos filed in support of summary judgment, she
described that following a pricing dispute at the restaurant Plaintiff “was unreasonable, erratic, and
displaying disturbing behavior” so she called the police. See Dkt. No. 54-5 at ¶ 3. Plaintiff states
that Ms. Ramos did not tell police in the body camera footage that Plaintiff was erratic, and that
instead she appeared “indifferen[t]” when asked whether she wanted Plaintiff restrained from
returning to the restaurant. See Dkt. No. 73 at 4. But this also does not raise a material dispute of
fact that would have precluded summary judgment. To the contrary, Ms. Ramos stated that
Plaintiff “was very rude and challenging,” but that the employees declined to file a restraining
order against him. See Dkt. No. 54-5 at ¶ 4. Ms. Ramos further stated that Plaintiff had returned
to and been served at the restaurant since the incident. See id. at ¶ 7. Nothing in the footage, even
as described by Plaintiff, suggests that Defendants discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff
because of his race.2
Plaintiff similarly argues that he obtained newly discovered evidence regarding
Defendants’ participation in the California Restaurant Meals Program” (“RMP”), despite
Defendants withholding this information in discovery. See Dkt. No. 74 at 5–7; see also Dkt. No.
74-1, Ex. 3 – Ex. 3.10. But the Court addressed Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing these
documents in the order granting summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 72 at 4–6. Even setting that
aside, the purportedly “new” evidence does not raise a material dispute that would have precluded
summary judgment. Plaintiff suggests, for example, that the documents “raise a genu[i]ne issue of
whether El Pollo Loco is a recipient of federal funds and a participant in a federal program subject
to Title VI compliance.” See Dkt. No. 74 at 6. But the documents simply show that Defendants
2 As Defendants point out, at least some of Plaintiff’s claims would also likely be barred by the
statute of limitations to the extent they are based on an incident from March 24, 2022, rather than
March 24, 2024. See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of California, 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993)
(holding statute of limitations for Title VI claims is the same as for § 1983 claims); Alameda
Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 631 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (statute of limitations for
§ 1983 claims is the “personal injury statute of limitations of the state in which the cause of action
arose”); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (personal injury statute of limitations in California is two
years).
Case 4:24-cv-01840-HSG Document 93 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
participated in the RMP, which Defendants do not dispute. The Court also did not grant summary
judgment based on a conclusion that Defendants were not subject to Title VI. See generally Dkt.
No. 72.
Plaintiff also suggests that this evidence undermines the declaration that Defendants
previously filed from Michael W. Simmons, the Senior Vice President for W.K.S. Restaurant
Corp. See Dkt. No. 74 at 5. Plaintiff points out that Mr. Simmons did not sign the RMP
documents and was not present during the alleged incident in 2022. Id. But Mr. Simmons’
declaration was based on his knowledge as Senior Vice President, and merely confirmed that
Defendants participated in the RMP Program. See Dkt. No. 54-2. He also stated that to his
knowledge neither he nor any employees made decisions about serving Plaintiff based on his race,
gender, or other protected category, and Plaintiff was not banned from El Pollo Loco restaurants.
Id. Nothing in the evidence that Plaintiff now points to undermines Mr. Simmons’ business
knowledge. Nor would the Court’s analysis have differed in the absence of his declaration.
Lastly, Plaintiff highlights myriad personal challenges that he has faced as a pro se litigant
and gender non-conforming male in pursuing his case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 74 at 7; Dkt. No. 75 at
4, 8–11. He states, for example, that he misunderstood his need to substantively oppose the
motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 75 at 3–4. However, even now, Plaintiff still fails to
offer any substantive argument that would preclude summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.
Plaintiff also states that he “was subjected to harassment and intimidation” by third parties,
including the police and individuals in the parking lot of the Santa Clara County Law Library; that
he suffers from mental and physical disabilities; and that he had limited resources to litigate his
case. See Dkt. No. 74 at 3–4; Dkt. No. 75 at 8–11. As stated in the summary judgment order,
“[t]he Court does not minimize the difficulty in litigating any federal case pro se, especially when
coupled with health challenges.” Dkt. No. 72 at 6. Still, “Plaintiff is nonetheless required to meet
court deadlines and pursue his case diligently.” Id. The Court afforded Plaintiff ample time to
obtain discovery and oppose summary judgment. Plaintiff’s personal challenges do not entitle
him to reconsideration.
The Court accordingly DENIES the motions for reconsideration. Dkt. Nos. 74, 75. The
Case 4:24-cv-01840-HSG Document 93 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, Dkt. No. 80, and the court of appeals is the
appropriate venue for him to seek adjudication of any disagreements with the Court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
1/5/2026
Case 4:24-cv-01840-HSG Document 93 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 5