Michael R. Spengler v. Kimberly Spengler et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE 21 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: 1. GRANTS Spenglers request to reopen this case, which the Court construes as a motion for relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b); 2. ORDERS the Clerk to reopen this case and docket the pleadings received from Spengler; and 3. ORDERS the Clerk to provide the USM-285 forms to the United States Marshal for service, as described above. (MD-JS5 Case Reopened). (lc). Modified on 1/25/2018 (lc).

O

1

JS-5

2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

12

15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE [21]

v.

13
14

Case № 5:17-CV-01616-ODW (SPx)

MICHAEL R. SPENGLER,

KIMBERLY SPENGLER, MICHAEL
ROW, TRACY JACKSON, MICHELLE
J. WAGGONER, AND TONY TYRE,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19
20

On August 8, 2017, Michael Spengler filed his Complaint, which relates to

21

alleged foul play leading to his father’s death, and subsequent distribution of the

22

estate. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Spengler1 claims this federal court has

23

jurisdiction

24

“Trademark/Copyrights/RICO/IRS.” (Compl. 6.) After obtaining an order from the

25

Court directing the United States Marshal to serve his Complaint (ECF No. 16),

26

Spengler voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice. (Not. of Dismissal, ECF

because

his

first

cause

of

action

is

for

27
28

1

Although there are multiple parties named “Spengler,” the Court’s references to “Spengler”
throughout mean Plaintiff Michael Spengler, unless otherwise specified.

1

No. 19.) He claimed that he had reached a settlement with his family and their

2

lawyer, and that he would receive an appropriate amount of his father’s estate. (Not.

3

of Dismissal 2–3.)

4

document styled as a “Request to Reopen,” and six forms entitled “Process Receipt

5

and Return” (Form USM-285). The Clerk did not immediately docket the pleadings

6

because the case was administratively closed after Spengler dismissed his case on

7

November 27, 2017. (Not. of Dismissal.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

8

GRANTS Spengler’s Request to Reopen, and instructs the Clerk to REOPEN this

9

case, and to file and docket the pleadings that the Court received on January 16, 2018.

On January 16, 2018, the Court received from Spengler a

10

II.

ANALYSIS

11

Spengler requests that the Court reopen his case, and also submits several

12

service receipts, which the Court interprets as a request to complete service via United

13

States Marshal.

14

A.

Request to Reopen

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that, “[o]n motion and just

16

terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,

17

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: …(3) fraud (whether previously called

18

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; … [or]

19

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Rule 60(b) is the appropriate vehicle for

20

relief where a party who entered into a settlement agreement, which led to the

21

dismissal of an action, later claims the settlement agreement was fraudulent. Keeling

22

v. Sheet metal Workers Intern. Ass’n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir.

23

1991) (citing cases across circuits) (“Repudiation of a settlement agreement that

24

terminated litigation pending before a court constitutes an extraordinary circumstance,

25

and it justifies vacating the court’s prior dismissal order.”) Thus, while the usual

26

avenue of recourse where a party simply breaches a settlement agreement is to file a

27

new suit for breach of contract, where the party alleges fraud, Rule 60(b) relief is

28

appropriate. See id.

2

Taking into account Spengler’s pro se status, the Court construes his request as

1
2

a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Spengler claims:

3

6

My sister and her lawyer promised me last month to drop
this & all lawsuits & they would give me a settlement on my
Dad’s probate, so I dropped them, but today I got a notice
that they are not going to give me anything at all. They lied
to me – please your Honor.

7

(Req. to Reopen 1, ECF No. 21.) This sounds of fraud. Whether Spengler will

8

ultimately be able to prove his case is another issue, but the Court finds good cause for

9

relief under Rule 60(b), and GRANTS Spengler’s request to reopen the case.

4
5

10

B.

Request for Service by U.S. Marshals

11

Spengler dismissed this action prior to serving his Summons and Complaint.

12

(Not. of Dismissal.) The Court had, however, already ordered the United States

13

Marshals to serve Spengler’s pleadings, with certain prerequisites for Spengler.

14

(Order re: Service of Process by United States Marshal, ECF No. 16; Order Directing

15

Service of Process, ECF No. 17.) On October 16, 2017, the Court ordered Spengler to

16

submit completed USM-285 forms along with a Notice of Submission to the Clerk

17

within 21 days of the date of that order—November 6, 2017. (Order re: Service 3,

18

ECF No. 16.) Spengler did not comply with that order, but then filed his dismissal on

19

November 27, 2017. (Not. of Dismissal.)

20

With his most recent submissions, he did file a Notice of Submission of

21

Documents to Clerk of Court, which included six completed USM-285 forms. The

22

Court notes Spengler’s failure to comply with the prior deadline, but finds good cause

23

in light of what he thought was a settlement, which turned out to be fraudulent.

24

Accordingly, the Court directs Clerk to provide the United States Marshal with the

25

completed forms along with the original summons and the appropriate number of

26

copies of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), summons, and all of the Court’s orders

27

regarding service, including this one. (ECF Nos. 16–17.) The United States Marshal

28

shall comply with the procedures set forth in the Court’s Order Directing Service of

3

1

Process by the United States Marshal. (ECF No. 17.)

2

Finally, the Court reminds Spengler of his obligations when proceeding with

3

this action, and that failure to comply with this Court’s orders, or the local rules

4

will result in dismissal of his action without further notice, for want of

5

prosecution. Plaintiff is reminded of the following requirements for the preparation

6

and submission of documents in this case:
a. All pleadings and other documents to be considered by the Court must be

7

addressed and submitted to the clerk of court for filing.

8
9

b. Once the service of process has been completed by the United States

10

Marshal, Plaintiff must mail to each defendant or, if an appearance has been

11

entered by counsel, to each defendant’s attorney, a copy of every pleading or

12

other document Plaintiff submits to the Court. Plaintiff shall include with

13

each original document to be filed with the clerk of court a proof of service

14

stating the date on which a true and correct copy of the document was

15

mailed to each defendant or defendant’s counsel.

16

c.

Any document received that has not been filed with the clerk of court or that

17

does not include a proof of service on all defendants or defendants’ attorneys

18

may be disregarded by the Court.

19

III.

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons set forth above, the Court:

21

1. GRANTS Spengler’s request to reopen this case, which the Court construes
as a motion for relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b);

22

2. ORDERS the Clerk to reopen this case and docket the pleadings received

23

from Spengler; and

24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

4

1
2
3

3. ORDERS the Clerk to provide the USM-285 forms to the United States
Marshal for service, as described above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

January 24, 2018

6

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10

cc: USMO

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5