Liao v. United States of America et al

Filing 101

ORDER RE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/23/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WANXIA LIAO, Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. (Docket No. 100) For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 No. C 11-02494 JSW 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 On April 16, 2012, this Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, declared Plaintiff 16 a vexatious litigant, and entered judgment. (See Docket Nos. 97-99.) Plaintiff did not appeal. 17 On April 15, 2013, nearly a year later, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant 18 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b), for fraud upon the Court and for estoppel. (Docket 19 No. 100.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, and it finds that a response from the 20 Defendants is not warranted. The Court also finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for disposition 21 without oral argument.1 Rule 60(b)(4) provides for relief from judgment on the basis that a judgment is void. An 22 23 incorrectly decided judgment is not itself sufficient to render a judgment void. United Student 24 Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 1377 (2010). “Rule 60(b)(4) applies 25 only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional 26 error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be 27 heard.” Id.; see also United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A final 28 Plaintiff has not properly noticed this motion for a hearing, in accordance with the Northern District Civil Local Rules, purportedly because she intends to move to have this Court recused from the case. 1 1 judgment is ‘void’ for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that considered it lacked 2 jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or 3 acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”). Plaintiff fails to offer any argument 4 that persuasively demonstrates this Court’s judgment was void. Rather, she attacks the merits 5 of the Court’s decision. Accordingly, she has not demonstrated that she is entitled to relief 6 under Rule 60(b)(4). 7 Rule 60(b)(6) permits a court to set a side a judgment for “any other reason that justifies 8 relief.” “Judgments are not often set aside under Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Rule is used 9 sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 erroneous judgment.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 12 2006) (quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005), in turn 13 quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). 14 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case. 15 Accordingly, she has not demonstrated a valid grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 16 60(b). 17 18 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: April 23, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?