Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Crown Resources Corporation et al

Filing 218

ORDER DENYING 217 STATE OF WASHINGTON'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Mary K. Dimke. (TNC, Case Administrator)

1

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Mar 11, 2025
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8
9
10

OKANOGAN HIGHLANDS
ALLIANCE AND STATE OF
WASHINGTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CROWN RESOURCES
CORPORATION AND KINROSS
GOLD U.S.A., INC.,

ORDER DENYING STATE OF
WASHINGTON’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
ECF No. 217

Defendants.

11
12

No. 2:20-CV-00147-MKD

Before the Court is Plaintiff State of Washington’s Motion for Relief from

13

Judgment. ECF No. 217. Consistent with the Court’s Sixth Bench Trial

14

Scheduling Order, ECF No. 190 at 11, the Court did not require Defendants to

15

respond. The Court has reviewed the motion and record and is fully informed. For

16

the reasons explained below, the Court denies the motion.

17
18

LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) “is to be utilized only where extraordinary

19

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

20

erroneous judgment.” United States v. State of Wash., 98 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.

ORDER - 1

1

1996) (citation and quotations omitted). Among other reasons, the rule “allows for

2

relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” based on “mistake,

3

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher

4

Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Hanson v. Shubert, 968 F.3d

5

1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
DISCUSSION

6
7

The State of Washington moves for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 60(b)(1). The Court concludes relief is unwarranted. The State’s arguments

9

made in support of its motion largely mirror the arguments it made opposing

10

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings—arguments the Court has

11

found unsupported by statute and case law. Compare ECF No. 206 at 5-6, 9-10,

12

15-16, 18-20 and ECF No. 211 at 20-22, 34-35, with ECF No. 214 at 6, 9-11. The

13

State’s remaining arguments similarly are without merit. 1 The Court thus declines

14

to set aside its prior order or modify the judgment. See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d

15

1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting a movant’s burden of “show[ing] that the

16
17

1

18

Washington failed to cite any Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent that would

19

squarely foreclose the outcome of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion

20

for judgment on the pleadings.

Contrary to its passing reference to “black letter law,” ECF No. 214 at 9,

ORDER - 2

1

district court committed a specific error”) (citing Thompson v. Housing Authority

2

of the City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986)).
CONCLUSION

3
4
5

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the State’s motion for relief
from judgment.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1.

8
9

The State of Washington’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF

No. 217, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this

10

Order and provide copies to the parties.

11

DATED March 11, 2025.

12

s/Mary K. Dimke
MARY K. DIMKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER - 3