Cortes v. MTC Financial, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN J. CORTES-SALCEDO, No. 1:18-cv-01269-DAD-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE 14 MTC FINANCIAL INC., d/b/a TRUSTEE CORPS, et al., (Doc. No. 26) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to reopen this closed action filed pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on October 7, 2019.1 (Doc. No. 26.) The court dismissed this case 19 on April 16, 2019 due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey a court 20 order. (Doc. No. 24.) Judgment was entered back on April 16, 2019. (Doc. No. 25.) 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 22 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 23 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 24 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 25 1 The undersigned apologizes for the delay in the issuance of this order. This court’s 26 overwhelming caseload has been well publicized and the long-standing lack of judicial resources 27 in this district has reached crisis proportion. Unfortunately, that situation sometimes results in a submitted matter being overlooked for a period of time and that occurred with respect to this 28 motion. 1 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 3 event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 4 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 5 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 6 Bishop, 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 7 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking 8 reconsideration under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and 9 circumstances beyond his control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and 10 citation omitted). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 13 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 14 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 15 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 16 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 17 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 18 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 19 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 20 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 21 Here, plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis under Rule 60(b) for this court to 22 reconsider its dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to 23 prosecute. Plaintiff does not explain why he failed to obey the court’s order requiring him to 24 inform the court of whether he intended to continue prosecuting this action after the court granted 25 his counsel’s motion to withdraw, in part because plaintiff had been unresponsive to his counsel’s 26 attempts at communication. (See Doc. No. 24 at 2.) Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s 27 motion to reopen this closed case. 28 ///// wOAOe 4:40 LOVE MEARE RAINE PYVVUETICTIL oo POO Ae OY MV VI 1 Moreover, in the pending motion, plaintiff states that he is now serving a jail sentence, 2 | and he requests that the court mail him copies of his “lawsuit paperwork” so he can file a pro-per 3 | lawsuit. (Doc. No. 26.) The court notes that plaintiff is not precluded from filing another lawsuit 4 | asserting his claims if he chooses to do so, as the court’s dismissal of this closed case was without 5 || prejudice.” (/d.) Thus, the court will direct that a copy of plaintiffs complaint be mailed to 6 | plaintiff at his current address of record. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. Plaintiff's motion to reopen this closed case (Doc. No. 26) is denied; 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of Document No. 2 in this action 10 to plaintiffs address of record; 11 3. This case shall remain closed; and 12 4. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ Dated: _ October 6, 2020 Y L “of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | ? Subject, of course, to the applicable statute of limitations.