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)

Download PDF
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?