You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Yoo Kim v. Targa Real Estate Service, Inc.

Citation: 332 F. App'x 426Docket: No. 09-35054

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 19, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Cyrus Yoo Kim appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding the impounding of his car. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The court affirms the dismissal, noting that Kim's action was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable under Washington law (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kim's motion for reconsideration, as he failed to present new evidence, changes in law, clear error, or manifest injustice. The ruling emphasizes that this disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as noted in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Non-Precedential Dispositions under 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Application: The ruling specifies that this particular case disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as provided under the Ninth Circuit rules.

Reasoning: The ruling emphasizes that this disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as noted in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Standard of Review for Motions for Reconsideration

Application: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration because the plaintiff did not present new evidence, changes in law, clear error, or manifest injustice.

Reasoning: Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kim's motion for reconsideration, as he failed to present new evidence, changes in law, clear error, or manifest injustice.

Statute of Limitations under Washington Law

Application: The court applied Washington's three-year statute of limitations to dismiss the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as it was filed beyond the permissible period.

Reasoning: The court affirms the dismissal, noting that Kim's action was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable under Washington law (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)).