Fred v. Washoe Tribe

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/6/13 DENYING 43 Motion for Reconsideration. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RHONDA WHITEROCK FRED,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No.

2:10-cv-0845 JAM-AC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

WASHOE TRIBE OF NEVADA &
CALIFORNIA,

15
Defendant.
16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Rhonda

17
18

Whiterock Fred’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief from Final

19

Judgment (Doc. #43).

20

California (“Defendant”) opposes the motion for reconsideration

21

(Doc. #45). 1

Defendant Washoe Tribe of Nevada &

22
I.

23

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed in August 2011

24
25

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

with leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was
scheduled.
1

1

order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

2

Complaint, Doc. #28, at 2.

3

a request for extension of time to file and appointment of

4

counsel (Doc. #29).

5

2011, and Plaintiff was given until December 23, 2011, to file

6

her amended complaint (Doc. #35).

7

interlocutory appeal on September 12, 2011 (Doc. #30).

8

January 12, 2012, the Court sua sponte ordered that “all current

9

dates are vacated and the court will take no action in this case

See Order Dismissing

On September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed

Both requests were granted on October 13,

Defendant filed a notice of
On

10

until prompted by a party.”

11

1-2.

On June 26, 2013, the appellate proceedings ended (Doc.

12

#40).

On September 13, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

13

action for failing to file an amended complaint (Doc. #41).

Order Vacating Dates, Doc. #36, at

14
15

II.

OPINION

16

A.

Legal Standard

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”) governs

18

the reconsideration of final orders of the district court.

Rule

19

60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final

20

order or judgment on grounds of “(1) mistake, inadvertence,

21

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

22

. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is

23

void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other

24

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

26

the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for

27

relief under Rule 60(b)(1).”

28

972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).

“Neither ignorance nor carelessness on

Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co.,

2

1

Plaintiff argues that she in good faith relied on the

2

Court’s order vacating all current dates and stating that the

3

Court would take no further action until prompted by the parties.

4

She also claims she mistakenly believed that after the appellate

5

proceedings, she would not be held to the time limit within which

6

to file her amended complaint.

7

complaint should have been filed by December 23, 2011, before the

8

Court issued its sua sponte order on January 12, 2012.

9

Therefore, Plaintiff could not have relied on the Court’s order.

However, Plaintiff’s amended

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient

11

grounds for relief.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3