Cornelio v. Intel Corporation

Filing 61

ORDER denying 59 Plaintiff's Motion for Request for Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/27/15.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joao Cornelio,

No. CV-08-00538-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Intel Corporation,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Joao Cornelio’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Request for

16

Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. (Doc. 59). The Court now rules on

17

the motion.

18

On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Intel Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion for

19

summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (Doc. 43, 44). Over

20

three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case. (Doc.

21

47). In an order dated September 17, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to re-open

22

because the Court had no jurisdiction to consider a motion under Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure Rule 60 filed more than a year after entry of final judgment. (Doc. 58).

24

Plaintiff filed this motion on July 22, 2015. (Doc. 59). It is not clear, however,

25

what Plaintiff’s motion requests; it is captioned as a “request of explanation/clarification

26

of denial to re-open case,” but consists almost entirely of a recitation of the facts of the

27

case and descriptions of newly discovered evidence. (Id.).

28

To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion requests, as its caption suggests, clarification

1

of the Court’s order refusing to re-open the case, the Court knows of no simpler way to

2

put it that it did in that order: “[A] district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely

3

motion to vacate a judgment.” (Doc. 58 at 2) (quoting Burton v. Spokane Police Dep’t,

4

517 F. App’x 554, 555 (9th Cir. 2013)).

5

To the extent that the motion is another request to re-open the case, it, like the

6

previous motion to re-open, is denied as untimely. Regardless of the explanations

7

Plaintiff gives for failing to obtain the new evidence, pursuant to Rule 60, the Court has

8

no jurisdiction to even consider a motion to re-open that is filed over six years after final

9

judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Burton, 517 F. App’x at 555.

10

III.

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing,

12

IT

13
14

IS

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Request

Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case (Doc. 59) is DENIED.
Dated this 27th day of August, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

for