Warwick v. University of the Pacific et al
Filing
253
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 247 RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO OPPOSE COSTS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
JOANNE WARWICK,
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
(CDCR); PATRICIA MILLER; MATTHEW
CATE; MARVIN SPEED; TED RICH;
MICHAEL BRADY; CLAUDIA BELSHAW;
JILL BROWN; JOHN D. STOKES; GARY
SWARTHOUT; DOES TWO THROUGH
TWENTY-FIVE, inclusive,
No. C 08-3904 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S
RULE 60 MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM THE
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO OPPOSE COSTS
(DOCKET NO. 247)
Defendants.
________________________________/
Plaintiff Joanne Warwick moves for relief from the Court’s
order denying her motion to oppose costs, pursuant to Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 60(b)(1), (2) and (3), and the
19
20
Court’s inherent equitable power.1
Docket No. 247.
Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 states that the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure “govern the procedure in all civil
actions and proceedings in the United States district courts,”
except for certain exceptions not relevant in this motion. Rule 1
further states that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should
be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
Because Plaintiff does not point to authority or provide
substantive argument based on Rule 1 and the Court’s inherent
authority, this Order addresses the standard for relief under Rule
60(b).
1
also requests that the Court issue an order requiring Defendants
2
to show cause as to why, given Defendants’ purported litigation
3
misconduct, she should still be required to pay costs.
4
Defendants oppose the motion.
5
parties' submissions, the Court denies the motion.
6
Having considered all of the
BACKGROUND
7
This lawsuit arises from Warwick’s termination as a contract
8
9
attorney for the California Parole Advocacy Program (CalPAP).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
CalPAP trains, appoints and assigns contract attorneys to parolees
11
facing parole revocation proceedings.
12
Defendant University of Pacific (UOP) through a contract with the
13
State of California.
14
of attorneys because her gate clearance at San Quentin prison was
CalPAP is operated by
CalPAP removed Warwick from the CalPAP panel
15
revoked.
In response to her termination, Warwick filed suit
16
against Defendants UOP, the California Department of Corrections
17
18
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and various individuals, claiming
19
violations under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California business
20
tort law.
21
her gate clearance was revoked and she was terminated as a CalPAP
22
contract attorney in retaliation for her various complaints
23
Throughout the litigation, Warwick has asserted that
regarding the management of CalPAP.
24
On July 6, 2010, this Court granted Defendants’ motions for
25
26
summary judgment on all claims.
On July 8, 2010, the Court
27
entered judgment in favor of Defendants.
28
Warwick filed objections to the Bill of Costs submitted by CDCR
2
On July 30, 2010,
1
and UOP.
2
objections, arguing that they failed to comply with Civil Local
3
Rule 54-2(b), requiring parties to meet and confer in an effort to
4
resolve the disagreement.
5
faith effort to arrange such a conference.
6
On August 4, 2010, Defendants moved to strike Warwick’s
The objecting party must make a good
In addition, on August
4, 2010, Warwick’s counsel filed a notice of substitution of
7
counsel and a proposed order to withdraw as counsel.
8
9
On August 11, 2010, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
amount of $11,589.65 for the CDCR and $7,435.19 for the UOP,
11
reducing, by a relatively small amount, Defendants’ costs request.
12
On that same day, the Court granted Warwick's counsel's request to
13
withdraw.
14
page motion to oppose costs, accompanied by over two hundred pages
A week later, Warwick filed, on her own behalf, a four-
15
of exhibits.
Warwick argued that she should be excused from
16
paying costs because Defendants were at fault for the protracted
17
18
litigation.
19
housing that week and requested an opportunity to supplement her
20
briefing.
21
determining that Warwick had not demonstrated (1) that limited
22
financial resources impeded her ability to pay costs over time,
23
Warwick indicated that she had been searching for
The Court denied the motion to oppose costs,
(2) that future litigants would be chilled from pursuing such
24
civil rights litigation, or (3) that her lawsuit otherwise
25
26
27
presented an issue of sufficient novelty, weight and merit that
the presumption in favor of awarding costs was rebutted.
28
3
The
1
Court did not otherwise address her request to file further
2
briefing.
3
Subsequently, Warwick sought relief from judgment, pursuant
4
to Rule 60(b).
5
relief from judgment.
6
On November 11, 2011, the Court denied Warwick
On December 19, 2011, more than a year
after the Court issued its order denying her motion to oppose
7
costs, Warwick moved for relief from that order.
8
LEGAL STANDARD
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that, "upon
11
such terms as are just," a court may relieve a party from an order
12
or final judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
13
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
14
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in
15
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether
16
heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
17
18
or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void;
19
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
20
(6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the
21
judgment.
22
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Under Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must (1) prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud,
24
misrepresentation, or other misconduct; and (2) establish that the
25
26
conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and
27
fairly presenting his or her case or defense.
28
Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004); Jones v.
4
Casey v.
1
Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878-79 (9th Cir. 1990).
2
Rule 60(b)(3) "require[s] that fraud . . . not be discoverable by
3
due diligence before or during the proceedings.
4
at 1260.
5
6
Casey, 362 F.3d
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, Warwick’s motion is untimely.
7
Rule 60(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a
reasonable time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no
more than a year after the entry of the judgment or
order or the date of the proceeding.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
12
On December 17, 2010 the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to
13
14
oppose costs, and more than one year later, on December 19, 2011,
15
she moved for relief from the Court’s order.
16
Warwick’s motion is denied as untimely.
17
2010 WL 2180364, *1 (E.D. Cal.) (holding that under Rule 60(c)(1)
18
the defendants’ motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rules
19
Accordingly
United States v. Carey,
60(b)(2) and (3) was untimely because it was filed more than one
20
year after entry of judgment).
21
22
Warwick’s motion also lacks merit.
She argues that her
23
request should be granted based on her excusable neglect.
24
Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997),
25
the case upon which Warwick relies, the plaintiff missed the
26
deadline to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss and shortly
27
thereafter the district court dismissed the action and entered
28
5
In
1
judgment against him.
2
aside the judgment, arguing that his failure to meet the deadline
3
constituted excusable neglect.
4
equitable test for excusable neglect established in Pioneer Inv.
5
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380,
6
The plaintiff then filed a motion to set
The Ninth Circuit held that the
381-82 (1993), applies to Rule 60(b).
Under that test, courts are
7
to consider, taking account of all relevant circumstances, the
8
9
danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
movant's delay and its potential impact on the judicial
11
proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was
12
within reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant
13
acted in good faith.
14
an exclusive list, provide the framework for deciding whether
Id.
The four enumerated factors, while not
15
missing a deadline constitutes "excusable" neglect.
Id.
16
Warwick does not argue that she missed the deadline to file
17
18
her original motion to excuse costs, as occurred in Briones.
19
Rather, she argues that she was excusably negligent in preparing
20
her unsuccessful motion to oppose costs because at the time she
21
was overwhelmed by a confluence of factors including her loss of
22
her lawsuit on summary judgment, her loss of counsel and her
23
search for housing, the latter two of which occurred in the week
24
prior to her filing of her motion to be excused from costs.
25
26
Warwick's motion included copious amounts of immaterial documents
27
and omitted specific information about her income.
28
earlier, in denying Warwick’s motion to oppose costs, the Court
6
As noted
1
stated that her submissions did not adequately support her
2
contentions that she lacked the ability to pay costs over time,
3
that future litigants would be chilled from pursuing civil rights
4
litigation if relief from costs were not granted, or that the case
5
was of sufficient novelty and merit that relief was warranted.
6
In
her current motion, Warwick repeats her prior arguments that her
7
case was meritorious and novel.
Furthermore, she does not argue
8
9
that at the time she moved to oppose costs, she was unable to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
provide sufficient information about her financial status.
11
these reasons, Warwick has not demonstrated that excusable neglect
12
justifies relief from the Court’s prior denial of her request to
13
be excused from costs.
14
For
Warwick also argues that she is entitled to relief from the
15
Court’s prior order based on newly discovered evidence, under Rule
16
60(b)(2).
In connection with the present motion, Warwick
17
18
submitted the following items as evidence: a March 29, 2006 letter
19
from Ernest Galvan, counsel for class plaintiffs in Valdivia v.
20
Brown,2 No. 94-cv-0671 (E.D. Cal.); a December 1, 2011 article by
21
Eric Jacobson; a September 29, 2011 letter from CDCR notifying an
22
attorney of a temporary exclusion order against him or her; and a
23
December 8, 2011 letter from a psychotherapist treating Warwick.
24
25
The first three items of evidence appear directed at Warwick's
26
2
27
28
This class action concerns the constitutionality of
California’s parole revocation process, including the right of
parolees to appointed counsel.
7
1
contention that her lawsuit raised important issues regarding the
2
due process rights of parolees.
3
Galvan at the time she originally moved to oppose costs.
4
letter does not constitute newly discovered evidence.
5
6
Warwick had the letter from
The
Nor do the December 1, 2011 article, the September 29, 2011
letter or Warwick’s therapist’s letter from December 8, 2011,
7
constitute newly discovered evidence.
These documents did not
8
9
exist at the time that the Court denied Warwick’s motion to excuse
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
costs.
See Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505
11
F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a declaration did not
12
constitute newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) because
13
it discussed evidence that was not inexistence at the time of
14
judgment).
15
Nor do these documents support Warwick’s contention that her
16
case was of exceptional importance or merit.
Although the
17
18
December 1, 2011 article discusses the broader implications of the
19
Supreme Court’s ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410
20
(2006), this Court found it unnecessary to rule on the application
21
of that precedent to her case because she failed to produce
22
evidence that the revocation of her gate clearance was in
23
retaliation for her speech.
Because Warwick lacked such evidence,
24
her case did not afford an opportunity to address whether the
25
26
principle announced in Garcetti applies CalPAP contract attorneys.
27
The article does not mention her case.
28
letter fails to establish that Warwick’s case was of exceptional
8
The September 29, 2011
1
importance or merit; it does not evidence that the attorney’s
2
temporary exclusion raised any meritorious or novel legal issue
3
and does not demonstrate any connection to Warwick’s case.
4
Likewise, Warwick’s therapist’s letter does not bear on the
5
applicable standard for excusing costs.
6
In sum, Warwick has not submitted newly discovered evidence
7
that changes the Court’s prior determination that her case was not
8
9
of sufficient merit or novelty that she should be excused from
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
paying costs.
Cf. Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. Cal.,
11
231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of $215,443.67
12
in costs to prevailing defendants where the plaintiffs pursued a
13
class action challenging teachers’ examination); National Org. For
14
Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1294 (9th Cir. 1982)
15
(affirming denial of costs to defendants where plaintiffs had
16
limited resources and lawsuit alleged wide-scale racial
17
18
discrimination).
In addition, in the present motion Warwick does
19
not argue that the Court previously failed to consider her
20
financial circumstances.
21
Finally, Warwick argues that the Court’s denial of her
22
request to be excused from costs resulted from Defendants’ fraud
23
and the Court should issue an order to show cause as to why she
24
should be required to pay despite Defendants’ alleged misconduct.
25
26
Her assertions are unwarranted because they are grounded in her
27
oft-repeated accusations that Defendants engaged in litigation
28
misconduct related to certain discovery requests.
9
Warwick was
1
unsuccessful in litigating her discovery disputes and the Court
2
has not found that Defendants engaged in misconduct.
3
request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) is denied.
4
5
6
Thus, her
CONCLUSION
Warwick's motion for relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated:
7/31/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?