USA v. DeAngeli et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Extend Court's Jurisdiction Over Consent Decree for Six Months. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/10/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

UNITED STATES OF AMERCA,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

3:11-cv-00796-RCJ-WGC

vs.

ORDER

PETER JAN DEANGELI AND DEANGELI
FAMILY TRUST,

11

Defendants.

12
This case arises from alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. Pending before the

13
14

Court is the Government’s Motion to Extend Court’s Jurisdiction Over Consent Decree for Six

15

Months (ECF No. 35). For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the motion.

16

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 16, 2013, the Court issued a consent decree resolving the claims in the case.

17
18

(Consent Decree, ECF No. 30). With the decree, Defendants agreed to abide by the Fair Housing

19

Act and to comply with specific requirements to achieve compliance. The decree also gave the

20

Court subject-matter jurisdiction over the action for a period of two years, effective October 16,

21

2013. (Id. ¶¶ 21–22). As a result, the Court’s jurisdiction terminated on October 16, 2015. The

22

Government moves the Court to extend its jurisdiction over the action for six months—until

23

April 16, 2016.

24

///

25
26

1

1

II.

2

LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits a party to obtain relief from a judgment

3

or order if “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” “[T]he Rule provides a means by

4

which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if ‘a significant change

5

either in factual conditions or in law’ renders continued enforcement ‘detrimental to the public

6

interest.’” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County

7

Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992)). “The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that

8

changed circumstances warrant relief, but once a party carries this burden, a court abuses its

9

discretion ‘when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes.’”

10

Id. (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 215 (1997)) (internal citations omitted); see also

11

United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 60(b)(6) also permits relief

12

from a judgment or order for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

13

III.

ANALYSIS

14

The Government moves the Court to modify the consent decree by extending its

15

jurisdiction for an additional six months. The Government’s only argument is that it “has not yet

16

received confirmation from Defendants that they have complied with . . . the Consent Decree”

17

and that additional time is necessary “for Defendants to show that they have complied with the

18

Consent Decree’s terms.” (Mot., 2). Defendants have not filed a response to the motion.

19

The Government has provided no evidence of a significant change in the factual

20

conditions or the law requiring a modification of the consent decree. In addition, the Court finds

21

no other reason to modify the decree. The case involves only two defendants and one apartment

22

building. The obligations imposed on the parties were not onerous and did not require extensive

23

time to complete. The Court denies the motion.

24
25
26

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Extend Court’s Jurisdiction
Over Consent Decree for Six Months (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8th 10th day of March, 2016.
Dated thisThis day of February, 2016.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3