USA v. Brooke et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/3/2025 DENYING 63 Motion for Reconsideration. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK

Plaintiff,
v.
BILL H. BROOKE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BILL H.
BROOKE’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. No. 63)

16
17

This matter is before the court on Defendant Bill H. Brooke’s pro se motion for

18

reconsideration of the court’s order entering judgment in this case pursuant to a stipulation filed

19

by the parties. (Doc. No. 63.) On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff United States filed an opposition to

20

Defendant Brooke’s motion. (Doc. No. 64.) Defendant Brooke did not thereafter file a reply.

21

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff United States filed the complaint initiating this action seeking

22

to reduce to judgment outstanding federal tax assessments against Defendant Brooke and to

23

foreclose federal tax liens upon certain real property owned by Defendant Brooke. (Doc. No. 1.)

24

On September 6, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed judgment, which the

25

court adopted on September 19, 2024, and judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff United

26

States and against Defendant Brooke on September 23, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 57, 60.)

27

On October 21, 2024, Defendant Brooke filed the pending one-page motion, in which he

28

states that he is “asking the court to dismiss this judgment,” because he had agreed to move out of
1

1

his house, and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed “not to bother [him] again,” but then Plaintiff filed a new

2

motion. (Doc. No. 63.) However, as Plaintiff correctly notes in its opposition to the pending

3

motion, Defendant Brooke is mistaken because no such new motion was filed. (Doc. No. 64.)

4

Rather, consistent with the terms of the parties’ September 6, 2024 stipulation, Plaintiff had

5

concurrently filed a motion to appoint a receiver to arrange for the sale of the subject property

6

(Doc. No. 58), which the court granted on October 11, 2024 (Doc. No. 62). Indeed, pursuant to

7

the terms of the parties’ stipulation, Defendant Brooke had agreed not to oppose Plaintiff’s

8

concurrently-filed motion to appoint a receiver, and he agreed to “permanently vacate the Subject

9

Property no later than 12 months after the entry of the Court’s order granting the United States’

10

Unopposed Motion.” (Doc. No. 57 at ¶¶ 14–15.) Further, in its opposition, Plaintiff states that

11

shortly after Defendant Brooke filed his pending motion, Plaintiff’s counsel communicated with

12

Defendant Brooke to provide clarification and explain that no new motions were filed. (Doc. No.

13

64 at 2.) In response, Defendant “Brooke communicated to [Plaintiff’s] counsel something to the

14

effect that he would review his documents and file a supplemental response to his request if

15

necessary.” (Id.) As noted above, Defendant Brooke did not file a reply in support of his motion

16

or any other form of response.

17

While the relief Defendant Brooke seeks and the legal basis for that relief is not entirely

18

clear, his filing appears to essentially be a motion for reconsideration, which is how the court will

19

construe his motion.

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

21

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

22

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

23

evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

24

been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for

25

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district

26

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

27

intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present

28

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”
2

1

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)

2

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Here, Defendant Brooke’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60(b) upon

3
4

which this court should reconsider its order entering judgment in this action. Accordingly,

5

Defendant Brooke’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 63) is denied.

6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

January 3, 2025

___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3