Filed: Aug. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Joao Cornelio's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Request for Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. (Doc. 59). The Court now rules on the motion. On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Intel Corporation's ("Defendant") motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (Doc. 43, 44). Over three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case. (Doc. 47). In an order
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Joao Cornelio's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Request for Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. (Doc. 59). The Court now rules on the motion. On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Intel Corporation's ("Defendant") motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (Doc. 43, 44). Over three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case. (Doc. 47). In an order d..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Joao Cornelio's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Request for Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. (Doc. 59). The Court now rules on the motion.
On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Intel Corporation's ("Defendant") motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (Doc. 43, 44). Over three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case. (Doc. 47). In an order dated September 17, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to re-open because the Court had no jurisdiction to consider a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 filed more than a year after entry of final judgment. (Doc. 58).
Plaintiff filed this motion on July 22, 2015. (Doc. 59). It is not clear, however, what Plaintiff's motion requests; it is captioned as a "request of explanation/clarification of denial to re-open case," but consists almost entirely of a recitation of the facts of the case and descriptions of newly discovered evidence. (Id.).
To the extent that Plaintiff's motion requests, as its caption suggests, clarification of the Court's order refusing to re-open the case, the Court knows of no simpler way to put it that it did in that order: "[A] district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion to vacate a judgment." (Doc. 58 at 2) (quoting Burton v. Spokane Police Dep't, 517 F. App'x 554, 555 (9th Cir. 2013)).
To the extent that the motion is another request to re-open the case, it, like the previous motion to re-open, is denied as untimely. Regardless of the explanations Plaintiff gives for failing to obtain the new evidence, pursuant to Rule 60, the Court has no jurisdiction to even consider a motion to re-open that is filed over six years after final judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Burton, 517 F. App'x at 555.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Request for Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case (Doc. 59) is DENIED.
