Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 171

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE by Judge William Alsup [denying 155 Motion to Vacate]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2019) Modified on 8/5/2019 (whasec, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 18-03748 WHA

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, and ROBERT
WILKIE, Secretary, United States Department
of Veterans Affairs,

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO VACATE

15
Defendants.
/

16
17

In June 2018, pro se plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva filed suit against defendants
18
United States Department of Veterans Affairs and United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
19
Robert Wilkie. On July 11, 2019, a prior order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and final
20
judgment was entered for defendants (Dkt. Nos. 154–155). On July 13, 2019, plaintiff appealed
21
the judgment and filed a timely notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 157). The next day, plaintiff moved
22
to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (Dkt. No. 158). Plaintiff has filed four supplemental
23
briefs to date, two of which were filed after plaintiff filed her reply (Dkt. Nos. 163–164,
24
168–169).
25
Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds for relief from a final judgment, including, in relevant
26
part:
27
28

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not

1
2

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b); or (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), representation, or misconduct by an opposing party.

3

Considering that plaintiff’s motion and subsequent briefs only introduce new legal theories and

4

do not introduce any instances of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct, the motion

5

does not warrant reopening the case at this late stage.

6

Furthermore, it is generally understood that “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers

7

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects

8

of the case involved in the appeal.” E.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56,

9

58 (1982). Plaintiff’s civil action was dismissed, judgment entered, and the case closed.
This order of events neatly conferred jurisdiction on our court of appeals. The district court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

lacks jurisdiction to reopen the case.

12

For the reasons stated herein, the motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED. Pursuant to

13

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds the pending motions suitable for submission without

14

oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 22. Plaintiff is further

15

advised that filing supplementary material after the operative brief has been filed is a violation of

16

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) and will not be permitted.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: August 5, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2