Starks v. Parball Corporation, 2:13-cv-02286-MMD-GWF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190108b56
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This case involves an employment dispute. Before the Court is Plaintiff Jimie L. Starks's motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) and (6) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 71.) The Court finds it unnecessary to consider a response to Plaintiff's Motion and denies the Motion for the following reasons. First, the Court cannot grant relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because more than a year has passed since the judgment and order from which Plai
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This case involves an employment dispute. Before the Court is Plaintiff Jimie L. Starks's motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) and (6) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 71.) The Court finds it unnecessary to consider a response to Plaintiff's Motion and denies the Motion for the following reasons. First, the Court cannot grant relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because more than a year has passed since the judgment and order from which Plain..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This case involves an employment dispute. Before the Court is Plaintiff Jimie L. Starks's motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) and (6) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 71.) The Court finds it unnecessary to consider a response to Plaintiff's Motion and denies the Motion for the following reasons.
First, the Court cannot grant relief under Rule 60(b)(3) because more than a year has passed since the judgment and order from which Plaintiff seeks relief was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) ("A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding."). The judgment and order from which Plaintiff seeks relief were entered on March 30, 2016. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.)
Second, Plaintiff has not presented a "reason that justifies relief" under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant because Defendant offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct that Plaintiff did not show to be pretextual. (ECF No. 52 at 8, 11.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed. (ECF No. 62 at 2.) Plaintiff's Motion does not contain any argument that would justify relief under these circumstances. (See generally ECF No. 71.)
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for relief from a judgment or order (ECF No. 71) is denied.
Source: Leagle
