Nilson v. Green Valley Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge James Ware denying 19 Motion to Set Aside Judgment (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Amy L. Nilson, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 09-00045 JW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Green Valley Corp., Defendant. /

Amy L. Nilson ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Green Valley Corporation ("Defendant") alleging nine causes of action.1 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). (hereafter "Motion," Docket Item No. 19.) The Court finds it appropriate to take this matter under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. On January 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Item No. 2.) On January 23, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Docket Item No. 10.) The Court found that Plaintiff's Complaint was unintelligible, failed to allege jurisdiction and failed to state a (1) Strict Liability-Ultra Hazardous Activities, (2) Strict Liability-Concealment, (3) Strict Liability-Nondisclosure, (4) Strict Liability-Intent to Misrepresent, (5) Strict Liability-Intent to Induce Reliance, (6) Strict Liability-Predictions and Intention, (7) Negligence-Aerobic Conditions, (8) Strict Liability-Defenses to Injuries, (9) Strict Liability-Truth. (Complaint ¶¶ 9-36, Docket Item No. 1.)
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

cognizable claim. (Id. at 2-3.) Accordingly, the Court entered judgment favor of Defendant. (Docket Item No. 11.) On February 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for certificate of appealability and an amended motion for reconsideration. (Docket Item No. 16.) On February 10, 2009, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (See Docket Item No. 18.) Plaintiff now moves the Court to set aside the judgment. Plaintiff contends that the Court should set aside the final judgment in this case pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides, "On motion ... the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for ... mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." A Rule 60(b)(1) movant must demonstrate that he or she "has a meritorious [cause of action] and that arguably one of the four conditions for relief applies-mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." Ben Sager Chem. Int'l. v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977). "Neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or [her] attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)." Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 1986). In Plaintiff's Motion, she fails to allege either mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Similar to Plaintiff's Complaint and amended motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment is unintelligible. For example, under the heading "ISSUES FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT" Plaintiff states "1. Is the Superfund Program Successfully Protecting the Environment and Human Health and Welfare of Residence from Hazardous Waste?; 2. What are the Conflicts between Corporate Behavior and Environmental Ethics?; 3. What Degree of Negligible Risk is Acceptable?; 4. What are the relative risks to Human Health in San Jose, California?" Nowhere in the Motion does Plaintiff address any of the grounds on which a Rule 60(b)(1) motion can be made. To the extent any grounds for setting aside the Judgment can be discerned from Plaintiff's Motion, the Court gleans two contentions. First, Plaintiff moves for relief from judgment on the

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ground that "without consulting with an attorney or informing ("Nelson") of alternatives, (Hon. James Ware) unilaterally decided he would not assert the plaintiff's claim." (Motion at 10.) The Court cannot pursue claims on behalf of litigants. Thus, Plaintiff has not stated an adequate ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Second, Plaintiff contends that the Court's Judgment is based on the fact that Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to a ruling. (Id. at 11.) However, the Court issued its orders based on the deficiencies discussed above, not on the untimeliness of Plaintiff's opposition to any ruling. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion is merely an attempt to rehash unintelligible arguments that the Court had previously decided.2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment and VACATES the hearing set for March 16, 2009.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: March 13, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

While Plaintiff's filing of the Motion is improper, the Court does not find that there is sufficient sanctionable conduct to declare her "vexatious" at this time. However, should Plaintiff continue to abuse the legal process, the Court will consider whether to find that Plaintiff is a " vexatious" litigant. A district court has inherent power to issue restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with long histories of abusive litigation. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765-66 (1980). In addition, the All Writs Act empowers a court to enjoin vexatious litigants from filing complaints or other papers without leave of the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). 3

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: John Richard Till [e-mail] Amy L. Nelson 3735 Senter Road San Jose, CA 95111 Dated: March 13, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28