O'Keefe v. Tesla Motors et al
Filing
37
Order by Judge William H. Orrick denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KEVIN O'KEEFE,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 3:16-cv-07179-WHO
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FRCP
60(B) MOTION
v.
TESLA MOTORS, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 35
Defendants.
12
13
On September 11, 2017, pro se plaintiff Kevin O’Keefe filed a motion under Federal Rule
14
of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the judgment in this case and restore it to the active docket.
15
Dkt. No. 35. He argues that he was not served defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was filed
16
February 22, 2017.
17
There is a fundamental problem with Mr. O’Keefe’s motion. He had the duty to provide
18
his current address to the Court and defendants at all times during the litigation. Civ. L. R. 3-11(a)
19
(“An attorney or a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must
20
promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address
21
specifying the new address.”) Defendants served their motion to dismiss at the address he initially
22
provided. Dkt. No. 17. When he failed to respond timely, defendants filed a reply to their motion
23
to dismiss on March 27, 2017, advising the Court of that fact. Dkt. No. 27. On March 30, 2017,
24
Mr. O’Keefe filed a notice of change of address, indicating that he had been homeless for several
25
weeks and documenting his new address. Dkt. No. 28. That was reason enough to excuse his
26
failure to keep the Court informed of his contact information and give him additional time to
27
respond; I issued an Order that allowed him to respond to defendants’ motion by April 17. Dkt.
28
No. 29. I warned him that failure to do so would result in the action being dismissed pursuant to
1
Rule 41(b). Id. The Order was served at his new address. Dkt. No. 29-1.
2
Mr. O’Keefe never responded. As a result, I issued an order dismissing the case for failure
3
to prosecute on April 24, which was also served at his new address, and entered judgment on April
4
28. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. Over four months later, Mr. O’Keefe filed the motion to restore.
5
Defendants oppose. Dkt. No. 36.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment on the
following grounds:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion must be made “within a reasonable time[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
Mr. O’Keefe is not entitled to relief. His motion repeatedly states that he was not served
the motion to dismiss “nor … anything from this Court.” Assuming that is true, the fault lies in
16
his failure to provide accurate contact information to the Court and defendants and in his failure to
17
prosecute his lawsuit, which was filed more than nine months ago on December 15, 2016. His
18
motion to restore focuses solely on the change of address that he filed in March. He does not
19
explain how it is that he was not served the Order to Show Cause and the Order Dismissing the
20
Case at the address he had so recently provided to the Court, or why he has waited so long file this
21
motion or to attempt to litigate this case. According to the address listed on his motion, he is
22
living at a different address now than the one of which he advised the Court in March. He gives
23
no explanation for this, and no reason under Rule 60(b) to grant relief. His motion is DENIED.
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
The Clerk shall serve this Order on the address on file with the Court and on the address
listed above the caption of Mr. O’Keefe’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2017
5
6
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?