Mohammed et al v. City of Morgan Hill et al

Filing 328

ORDER denying 317 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/1/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05630 EJD

ESTATE OF ABDURAHAM
MOHAMMED,by and through Its
Successors in Interest CHARLES
WIDEMAN, Executor, HODAN
MOHAMMED, Alternate Executor,
ABDULLAHI MOHAMMED,
SHARMAKE MOHAMMED, and JINOW
GUDAL,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT
[Docket Item No(s). 317]

14
15

Plaintiff(s),
v.

16
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, et. al.,
17
18

Defendant(s).
/

19
20
21

I.

INTRODUCTION

On July 13, 2012, the court dismissed this civil rights action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 41(b) after Plaintiff Estate of Abduraham Mohammed, by and through its successors in

23

interest Charles Wideman, Executor, Hodan Mohammed, Alternate Executor, Abdullah Mohammed,

24

Sharmake Mohammed and Jinow Gudal neglected to file an amended complaint by the deadline

25

imposed. See Docket Item No. 315. The court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of

26

Defendants that same day. See Docket Item No. 316.

27
28

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Charles Wideman’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief
from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. See Docket Item No. 317.
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05630 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

Defendants have filed written opposition to the motion. Having reviewed this matter, the court finds

2

it suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Thus, the

3

hearing scheduled for November 8, 2013, will be vacated and Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for

4

the reasons explained below.

5
6

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

As noted, Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure. Section (b) of that rule, which will guide the following analysis, provides:

8

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

III.

DISCUSSION

16

Plaintiff cites three sections of Rule 60(b). None entitle him to relief.

17

A.

18

Under section (b)(1), Plaintiff’s argument reveals he seeks redress for perceived judicial

19
20

Rule 60(b)(1)

“mistake.” This argument is both untimely and misplaced.
As to timing, the plain language of the rule requires that motions under section (b)(1) be

21

brought within a “reasonable time,” but “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order

22

or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). “What constitutes ‘reasonable time’

23

depends upon the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for

24

delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to

25

other parties.” Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, the instant motion

26

was filed well past the deadline to appeal the dismissal order. For that reason, “the interest in

27

finality must be given great weight.” Id. Plaintiff provides no reason for the failure to timely

28

challenge the order by direct appeal or through an earlier-filed 60(b) motion. In addition, there
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05630 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

appears nothing that could have prevented Plaintiff from learning of the court’s ruling when it was

2

issued. Indeed, Plaintiff must have known no later than October 26, 2012, when he filed a second

3

case on the same issues.1 Under these circumstances, the court must conclude that this motion, filed

4

nearly a year after the dismissal order was entered, was not brought within a “reasonable time.”

5

As to the substance, the court disagrees that it committed a legal error. The court carefully

6

considered and applied the factors provided by Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

7

1991) and concluded that dismissal was appropriate after it provided Plaintiffs significant latitude

8

and overlooked several instances of non-compliance, as was explained in the dismissal order. This

9

is true whether or not a scheduling order was issued.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In the end, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the court’s decision does not equate to error.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 60(b)(1) will be denied.

12

B.

13

To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), “the moving party must prove by clear and convincing

14

evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the

15

conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” De

16

Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). “Clear and convincing

17

evidence” is a standard greater than “preponderance of the evidence” but lesser than “beyond a

18

reasonable doubt.” United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (9th Cir. 1985).

19

Rule 60(b)(3)

Assuming, arguendo, that the section (b)(3) motion is not untimely for the same reasons

20

discussed above, Defendant has not presented anything that would amount to clear and convincing

21

evidence of fraud. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the court did not convert motions to dismiss

22

into motions for summary judgment; it simply ruled on Defendants’ arguments made under Federal

23

Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See Docket Item No. 295. And Defendants did not act fraudulently in

24

filing the motions to dismiss considering many of their arguments were determined meritorious.

25

Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff’s requests for default were declined is not evidence of fraud since

26

Plaintiff was not entitled to such relief in light of the defects in service. Accordingly, the court

27
28

1

The court takes judicial notice of case number 5:12-cv-05530 PSG. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
3

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05630 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

rejects these theories as valid grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(3).

2

C.

Rule 60(b)(4)

3

Under Rule 60(b)(4), Plaintiff argues the dismissal is void, mainly due to the same purported

4

insufficiencies raised under sections (b)(1) and (b)(3). Since those purported insufficiencies have

5

already been rejected as reasons to vacate the judgment, the court finds this argument unconvincing

6

as well. See U.S. Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (“Rule 60(b)(4) applies

7

only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error

8

or on a violation of due process[.]”). In this case, the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter was

9

clear, and no cognizable violation of due process occurred during the proceedings.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IV.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Docket Item No. 317)

12

is DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: November 1, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05630 EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT