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

Filing 193

ORDER DENYING 174 175 192 MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TO CHANGE VENUE, AND TO VACATE JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

12
13
14

No. C 18-03748 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, TO CHANGE
VENUE, AND TO VACATE
JUDGMENT

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. 154–55). On July 13, plaintiff appealed the
21
judgment and filed a timely notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 157). The next day, plaintiff moved to
22
vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (Dkt. No. 158). On August 5, a prior order denied the
23
motion to vacate, stating that “[t]he district court lack[ed] jurisdiction to reopen the case” (Dkt.
24
No. 171 at 2). The next day, plaintiff appealed that order as well (Dkt. No. 173). Plaintiff’s
25
appeal remains pending.
26
Plaintiff now moves to stay the judgment, for an injunction pending appeal, for an
27
appointment of a master pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(5) and F.R.C.P. Rule 53, and to
28

1

transfer the instant action “to the Second Judicial District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico”

2

(Dkt. Nos. 174–75). She has since filed nine “supplemental briefs” to date in connection with

3

the instant motions (Dkt. Nos. 177, 181–82, 184, 186–87, 189–91). Plaintiff also requests

4

clarification regarding the order dated July 11 and renews her request to vacate the judgment

5

(Dkt. Nos. 183, 192). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds the pending motions

6

suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearings scheduled for

7

September 12 and October 10.

8
9

As the Court has already noted, plaintiff’s action was dismissed, judgment has been
entered, and the case remains closed (see Dkt. No. 171 at 2). In denying plaintiff’s prior motion
to vacate judgment, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case (ibid.). To the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the prior order denying the motion to vacate (see Dkt.

12

Nos. 174 at 8; 192), the request is DENIED. The fact remains that the district court lacks

13

jurisdiction to reopen the case. Plaintiff’s pending motions to stay, for an injunction pending

14

appeal, for an appointment of a master, and for change of venue are DENIED. Plaintiff’s request

15

to clarify the order dated July 11 is DENIED. Plaintiff’s recourse for the relief she seeks is now

16

fully before our court of appeals. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 3, 2019.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2