United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg, Senior United States District Judge
February 27, 2017, this Court entered judgment in favor of
the only remaining Defendant in this case. (Docs. 205 and
206). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed three motions. The Court
will address each motion below.
Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis (Doc. 214)
writ was abolished in Federal Rule of Civil Procedural 60(e);
accordingly any relief sought in this petition is denied.
Motion to Vacate (Doc. 208)
motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's
order of December 21, 2016 (Doc. 204). Motions for
reconsideration are due within 14 days. L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(2).
This motion was filed approximately 3 months after the Order
was entered and is untimely. Accordingly, any relief sought
therein is denied.
Motion to Vacate (Doc. 207)
40 page motion with an additional 22 pages of exhibits,
Plaintiff moves for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 relief
from this Court's summary judgment order. Plaintiff
claims to seek relief under Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(3), and
Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake etc.)
re-urges the same evidence he had in his possession at the
time he opposed Defendant's summary judgment motion and
argues that this Court committed a mistake by ruling against
him. Rule 60 is not an opportunity to seek reconsideration of
the Court's prior order, which is effectively what
Plaintiff is asking. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 207 at 1-30) and finds the Court
did not make any “mistake” that would entitle
Plaintiff to relief. Accordingly, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is
Rule 60(b)(2) (fraud etc.)
next argues Defendant made certain misrepresentations to the
Court regarding the timing of discovery and Plaintiff
disputes the report of Defendant's expert. (Doc. 207 at
31-39). The timing of discovery issues were previously
addressed by this Court (Doc. 204), but regardless do not
impact Defendant's entitlement to summary judgment in
this case; therefore, the Court will not grant relief on this
basis. Further, Plaintiff's complaints regarding
Defendant's expert do not provide a basis for Rule
60(b)(2) relief because under Plaintiff's own facts, the
Court was never misled. Accordingly, relief under Rule
60(b)(2) is denied.
Rule 60(b)(4) (void judgment)
makes no specific argument under this section (Doc. 207 at
39); therefore for the reasons stated above relief is denied.
To the extent Plaintiff includes an argument under Rule 61 in
this motion (although captioned Rule 62) (Doc. 207 at ...