Domai v. American Express et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF DISMISSAL -denying 33 Motion to Set Aside. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 12/17/19. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
GUY M. DOMAI,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
RELATED SERVICES; JEFF SHANE, an
individual; KRIS HAUSER, an individual;
STEVE TUTTLE, an individual; KEN
CHENAULT, an individual; MARIANNE
STEINKE, an individual; and AL PECK,
an individual;
Case No. 2:15-cv-542
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendant.
Before the court is Plaintiff Guy M. Domai’s Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal
(ECF No. 33). While the Motion does not state the relief Plaintiff seeks, the title of the Motion
indicates that Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s October 18, 2016 Order (ECF No. 29)
adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner (ECF No. 24)
and dismissing Plaintiff’s action. The court therefore interprets the Motion as a motion
requesting relief from a judgment or order and analyzes the same under Rule 60 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
As such, in order to obtain the relief he seeks, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (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
1
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.” FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b). Plaintiff’s motion, even when read liberally, fails to address any of these factors.
Rather, Plaintiff indicates that his Motion merely serves as an introduction and that he
intends to submit additional evidence to the court and will “proceed with the motions once the
evidence is received by the court.” (ECF No. 33 at 2). Plaintiff’s Motion was filed over two
years ago, and he has not submitted any evidence, other pleadings, or otherwise proceeded with
his Motion, or this action, since it was filed. Given the ambiguous nature of the relief Plaintiff
seeks, paired with Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his Motion, Plaintiff presents no issues for the
court to analyze and no questions for it to consider. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside
Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?