Lam et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 258

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 257 Motion for Reconsideration re 236 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ALFREDO LAM, et al.,

Case No. 08-cv-04702-PJH

Plaintiffs,
5
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

6
7
8

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 257

Defendants.

9
10

Before the court is pro se plaintiffs Alfred Lam and Paula Leiato’s motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

reconsideration. Having reviewed the papers, and good cause appearing, the court
12
hereby DENIES the motion as untimely and meritless.
13
This case has been closed since April 13, 2012. On that date, the court granted
14
summary judgment in favor of defendants and entered judgment against plaintiffs. Dkt.
15
236, 237. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed on March 23, 2014.
16
Dkt. 246. The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari on June 22, 2015. Dkt. 255.
17
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
18
Procedure 59(b), 59(e), 60(b) and 60(d)(3). Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider and
19
20
21
22

vacate its April 2012 summary judgment order based on “newly discovered evidence”
and “overlooked grounds.” The motion lists 22 grounds for reconsideration, the main
theme being that alleged newly discovered evidence—to wit, alleged “fraud” or “wrongful
statements” by various defense witnesses—justifies relief from the court’s prior judgment.

23
It has been over four years since judgment was entered in this case. Rule 59
24
motions must be made 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), (e). To
25
26
27
28

the extent that plaintiffs’ motion is based on Rule 59, it is DENIED as untimely.
Rule 60 motions must be made “no more than a year after the entry of judgment”
or “within a reasonable time,” depending on the alleged ground for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

60(c)(1). This one-year time limit foreclosures any claim for relief from the judgment

2

based on “mistake [or] inadvertence,” “newly discovered evidence,” or “fraud . . . by an

3

opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P . 60(b)(1)–(3); 60(c)(1). (Plaintiffs do not appear to rely

4

on Rule 60(b)(4)–(6), and in any event, their motion was not made “within a reasonable

5

time.”) Thus, to the extent that plaintiffs’ motion is based on Rule 60(b), it is DENIED as

6

untimely.

7

The only remaining ground for relief that is not expressly time-barred is Rule
60(d)(3), which reflects the court’s inherent power to “set aside a judgment for fraud on

9

the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). However, this ground is to be distinguished from

10

simple fraud by an opposing party. See In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

1999) (“[N]ot all fraud is fraud on the court.”). True “fraud on the court” requires a

12

showing by clear and convincing evidence of egregious misconduct that “does or

13

attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that

14

the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging

15

cases that are presented for adjudication.” In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 926 F.2d

16

912, 916 (9th Cir.1991). “Mere nondisclosure of evidence is typically not enough to

17

constitute fraud on the court, and ‘perjury by a party or witness, by itself, is not normally

18

fraud on the court.’” United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir.

19

2011). The allegations in plaintiffs’ motion, even if proven, amount to (alleged) perjury by

20

a witness or nondisclosure of evidence by the defense. At most, this is ordinary fraud

21

subject to Rule 60(b) and its one-year time limit, not fraud on the court.

22

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: January 4, 2017

25
26
27

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

28
2