Filed: Mar. 31, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On December 29, 2015, almost four years after judgment was entered in this action, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered on February 2, 2011. 1 (ECF Nos. 31, 37.) Plaintiff makes the conclusory argument in his motion that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 60(b)(3) authorizes the vacation of the judgment because Defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Reliable
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On December 29, 2015, almost four years after judgment was entered in this action, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered on February 2, 2011. 1 (ECF Nos. 31, 37.) Plaintiff makes the conclusory argument in his motion that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 60(b)(3) authorizes the vacation of the judgment because Defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Reliable ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On December 29, 2015, almost four years after judgment was entered in this action, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment entered on February 2, 2011.1 (ECF Nos. 31, 37.) Plaintiff makes the conclusory argument in his motion that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 60(b)(3) authorizes the vacation of the judgment because Defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Reliable Trust Deed Services, and Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") concealed, or failed to disclose, the identities of proposed new defendants Plaintiff now seeks to add as defendants in this closed lawsuit, contending that they were previously involved with the mortgage note of his former home that has been sold. (See ECF No. 37 at 4 ¶ 1; ECF No. 40 at 5:10-12.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should have provided Plaintiff with the identities of the proposed new defendants before judgment was entered in this action; therefore, judgment should be vacated, and Plaintiff should be authorized to add the referenced new defendants in an amended complaint. (ECF No. 37 at 3:18-28.) Defendants oppose, in essence arguing that they were not required to provide Plaintiff the information he references.2
The provision of Rule 60 applicable to the relief Plaintiff seeks is Rule 60(b)(3). Concerning Rule 60(b)(3), Rule 60(c)(1) provides in pertinent part: "A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and . . . no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff's motion is untimely under Rule 60(c)(1). However, Plaintiff argues judgment may be set aside after the one-year deadline in Rule 60(c)(1) since there has been a "fraud on the court." (ECF No. 37 at 2:22-26.)
[Rule] 60(b) preserves the district court's right to hear an independent action to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. An independent action to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court is "reserved for those cases of injustices which, in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata." "[A]n independent action should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice."
Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 46-47 (1998)). The Ninth Circuit has explained:
"Fraud upon the court" should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.
In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999). "Generally, non-disclosure [of evidence] by itself does not constitute fraud on the court." Id.
Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants had an affirmative obligation to disclose the information he references in his motion, nor that the fraud on the court doctrine applies to the situation about which he complains.
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to vacate the February 2, 2011, judgment is denied.
