Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 3:17-cv-02090-BTM-BGS. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200302773
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [ECF No. [#20]] BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani's ("Plaintiff") motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 20.) Notably, this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 16, 2018 based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not appeal such dismissal. Because Plaintiff's instant mot
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [ECF No. [#20]] BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani's ("Plaintiff") motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 20.) Notably, this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 16, 2018 based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not appeal such dismissal. Because Plaintiff's instant moti..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
[ECF No. [#20]]
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani's ("Plaintiff") motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 20.) Notably, this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 16, 2018 based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) Plaintiff did not appeal such dismissal. Because Plaintiff's instant motion fails to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from pursuing an appeal of such dismissal, he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971) ("In order to bring himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b)(6) a petitioner is required to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal." (citing Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, (1949); and Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950))). Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated any other basis for relief, let alone that his approximately nineteen-month delay in seeking relief was reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
