The United States of America v. Mednansky et al

Filing 78

ORDER Denying 77 Motion for Relief from Void Judgment per Rule 60(b)(4), and Motion for Relief Due to Fraud, Misconduct, Mistake Deprivation of Due Process and Inconsistent Rulings Per Rule 60(b)(3),(b)(6). Defendants fail to explain why the gro unds raised in the present motion could not have been raised in any of their three previous motions for reconsideration, all filed after the Supreme Court issued the Sackett decision. Accordingly, the Court Denies Defendants' request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,

ORDER DISMISSING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION UNDER
RULES 60(b)(3) AND (4);

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 10-CV-1307-MMA-BGS

vs.

DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION UNDER
RULE 60(b)(6)

14
15
16
17
18

DAVID MEDNANSKY, MARTINE
MEDNANSKY, individually,

[Doc. No. 77]

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants David Mednansky and Martine

19

Mednansky’s Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

20

60(b)(3), (4), and (6). [Doc. No. 77.] The Court has previously entertained

21

Defendants’ arguments related to Rule 60(b)(4), and on this ground summarily

22

DISMISSES this claim. [See Doc. No. 67.] Furthermore, the Court finds that

23

Defendants’ 60(b)(3) argument is premised on the same grounds as their 60(b)(4)

24

request, and DISMISSES this claim as well.

25

Finally, Defendants fail to demonstrate that another “reason . . . justifies

26

relief” under Rule 60(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). “Judgments are not often set

27

aside under Rule 60(b)(6). Rather, the Rule is used sparingly as an equitable remedy

28

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary
-1-

10cv1307

1

circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an

2

erroneous judgment.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097,

3

1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157

4

(9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). “Accordingly, a party who moves for

5

such relief ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that

6

prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action in a proper fashion.’” Id.

7

(quoting Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002)).

8
9

Here, Defendants’ request for reconsideration relies on events that presumably
occurred in 2009 and 2010. [See Civil Case No. 09CV1478-LAB-BGS (case

10

dismissed August 26, 2010).] Furthermore, Defendants rely on a Supreme Court

11

case decided March 21, 2012. [See Mot. at 19-21 (citing Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct.

12

1367, 1371 (2012)).] A motion for reconsideration is not the proper mechanism to

13

raise arguments that could reasonably have been presented earlier in litigation.

14

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants fail to explain

15

why the grounds raised in the present motion could not have been raised in any of

16

their three previous motions for reconsideration, all filed after the Supreme Court

17

issued the Sackett decision. [See Doc. Nos. 50, 53, 67.] Accordingly, the Court

18

DENIES Defendants’ request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2013

21
22
23

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

10cv1307