Morgan Stanley Smith Barney et al v. Stafford

Filing 25

ORDER denying 21 Stafford's Rule 60 motion. Final Judgment having been entered 20 , this case shall remain closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby on 9/16/2015. (mailed to pro se respondent P. Stafford) (EMH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY LLC and MORGAN
STANLEY SMITH BARNEY FA
NOTES HOLDINGS LLC,
Petitioners,

CV-15-15-BLG-CSO

ORDER

vs.
PAUL EDWARD STAFFORD
a/k/a PAUL E. STAFFORD a/k/a
PAUL STAFFORD,
Respondent.
This case is before the Court to address what has been construed
as a motion for relief from the Judgment entered on August 5, 2015. As
set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
The parties are familiar with this matter’s factual and procedural
background, so the Court need not repeat it here. Respecting the
motion at hand, on August 13, 2015, Respondent Paul Edward Stafford
(“Stafford”) sent correspondence (ECF 21-1) to the Court that the Court
construed as a motion under Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P., for relief from the
Judgment entered on August 5, 2015. Judgment (ECF 20).
On August 17, 2015, the Court afforded Petitioners an

opportunity to respond, which they did on August 31, 2015. See Order
(ECF 21) and Petitioners’ Br. in Opposition to Resp.’s Thank You and
Questions (ECF 22). On September 1, 2015, the Court afforded Stafford
an opportunity to file a reply, which he did on September 15, 2015. See
Order (ECF 23) and Respondent’s Reply Br. to Petitioners’ Opposition to
Respondent’s Questions (ECF 24).
The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and arguments
respecting the motion at hand. For reasons previously stated in the
Order Granting Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed on August
5, 2015 (ECF 19), and based on the Petitioners’ arguments raised in
their Brief in Opposition to “Respondent’s Thank You and Questions”
(ECF 22), the Court will deny Stafford’s motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Stafford’s Rule 60 motion (ECF 21-1) is
DENIED. Final judgment having been entered (ECF 20), this case
shall remain closed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(2).
DATED this 16th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge

2