PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge
This case comes before the Court on plaintiff Araya Henok's motion for relief from a judgment or order, filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. for Relief [Dkt. No. 51].
On March 8, 2013, Mr. Henok filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court's Order. See Not. of App. [Dkt. No. 49]. Six months later, on September 26, 2013, Mr. Henok filed the instant motion for relief in this Court. See Mot. for Relief. Although the parties have already begun to brief the case on appeal, the D.C. Circuit has ordered that the appeal be held in abeyance pending this Court's resolution of Mr. Henok's motion. See Henok v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Dkt. No. 1475069, No. 13-7036 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (Order); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 62.1 (setting forth the district court's options when faced with a motion that it "lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending")—.
Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part, that "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding [based on] newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2). "In order to receive relief from a final judgment or order under Rule 60(b)(2), a moving party must demonstrate that (1) the newly discovered evidence is of facts that existed at the time of the trial or merits proceeding; (2) the party seeking relief was `justifiably ignorant of the evidence despite due diligence'; (3) the evidence is admissible and is `of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome'; and (4) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching." Almerfedi v. Obama, 904 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting Duckworth v. United States, 808 F.Supp.2d 210, 216 (D.D.C. 2011)).
The basis for Mr. Henok's motion is his receipt in April 2013 of a letter reporting that federal banking regulators had reached an agreement with Chase "in connection with an enforcement action related to deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processes." Mot. for Relief, Ex. 1. As a result of the agreement, Mr. Henok received a check in the amount of $300, which accompanied the letter. Id. The letter further explained that Chase had entered into the agreement with two United States regulators — the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — to resolve an "Independent Foreclosure Review" conducted by those agencies. Id. The payment to Mr. Henok, the letter stated, had been "determined... based on the stage of your foreclosure process and other considerations related to your foreclosure." Id. It also expressly stated that "[t]his payment does not mean that you necessarily suffered financial injury or harm." Id. In his motion, Mr. Henok argues that this "newly discovered evidence ... whereby the U.S. federal banking regulators ... conducted an independent foreclosure review and found that [C]hase in fact had a deficient mortgage servicing [sic] and deficient foreclosure processes in regards to [Henok's property]... directly supports [his] claims that [C]hase's foreclosure was defective." Mot. for Relief at 3.
The premise for a successful motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) is the discovery of new evidence "of facts that existed at
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for relief [Dkt. No. 51] is DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall promptly notify the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
SO ORDERED.