Brosnan v. Oberle et al

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup denying 32 Motion to Amend/Correct ;.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

JOHN BROSNAN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 07-04337 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO AMEND JUDGMENT

DON OBERLE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

A June 2008 order dismissed this action with prejudice because it was “duplicative of a

16

previous appeal from the bankruptcy court and involved the same issues and the same parties”

17

(Dkt. No. 28). The same order referred pro se plaintiff John Brosnan to the United States

18

Attorney for possible perjury and obstruction. Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment

19

against him under Rule 60 on the ground of fraud. The motion falls well outside the one year

20

limitations period in Rule 60(c)(1) and on that basis is DENIED. Moreover, even if the motion

21

were timely, plaintiff’s allegations that defendants made various misstatements and misleading

22

omissions in this action are irrelevant to the ground for dismissal. Plaintiff’s motion does not set

23

out any basis to conclude that the dismissal on the ground that the action was duplicative was

24

procured by fraud. The motion is accordingly DENIED for this reason as well.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: October 3, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE