Ross et al v. Balderas et al

Filing 295

ORDER by Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. denying 285 Plantiff Andrew Ross's Motion for Reconsideration of award of attorney's fees to Defendant Robert Richards. (rt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ANDREW ROSS and SUSAN GERARD,
Plaintiffs,
No.

vs.
HECTOR BALDERAS, JR., ROBERT
GARCIA, SARAH MICHAEL
SINGLETON, FRANCIS J. MATHEW,
RAYMOND Z. ORTIZ, DAVID K.
THOMPSON, JENNIFER ATTREP, T.
GLENN ELLINGTON, SYLVIA
LAMAR, DONITA OLYMPIA SENA,
DONNA BEVACQUA-YOUNG, PAT
CASADOS, FRANK SEDILLO,
WILLIAM PACHECO, ANTONIO
GUTIERREZ, ANNA MONTOYA,
JUDAH BEN MONTANO, A. ARROYO,
E. MONTIJO, MICHELLE PORTILLO,
STEPHEN T. PACHECO, JANE
GAGNE, JOYCE BUSTOS, LYNN
PICKARD, PAMELA REYNOLDS,
ROBIN MARTINEZ, ROBERT
RICHARDS, BRENDA WALL,
AUDREY MONTOYA, and ALLSTATE
INSURANCE, INC.,
Defendants.
-------------------------PAMELA REYNOLDS and ROBERT
RICHARDS,
Counter-Claimants,
vs.

1:16-cv-01121 PJK/SMV

ANDREW ROSS and SUSAN GERARD,
Counter-Defendants.

ORDER ON RULE 60(B)(3) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
GRANTING ROBERT RICHARDS’S ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of Plaintiff Andrew Ross’s Rule
60(b)(3) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Robert Richards Attorney Fees
filed November 13, 2017. Doc. 285. Upon consideration thereof, the Motion is not well
taken and should be denied.
Plaintiff Andrew Ross urges the court to relieve him from paying Defendant
Richards’s attorney’s fees as awarded in the amended judgment of October 2, 2017. Doc.
269; see also Doc. 268. There is no basis for granting the motion; Mr. Ross’s claim that
others have committed crimes against him or Ms. Gerard fall far short of the clear and
convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party
that is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). See Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc.,
426 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, adverse legal rulings are not a proper
basis for asserting fraud.
Mr. Richards has requested that Mr. Ross be placed under filing restrictions and be
ordered to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation, which could lead to a commitment
proceeding or appointment of a guardian ad litem. He also seeks attorney’s fees and costs

-2-

subsequent to the order granting him fees. This matter is concluding and the court
declines to order such relief.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
Plaintiff Andrew Ross’s Rule 60(b)(3) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting
Robert Richards Attorney Fees filed November 13, 2017 (Doc. 285), is denied.
DATED this 1st day of December 2017, at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
/s/ Paul Kelly, Jr.
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation

-3-