Drevaleva v. Hayo ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 21-cv-00684-HSG DREVALEVA, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 9 RECONSIDERATION v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 79 DENNIS HAYO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this 14 Court’s order dismissing her claims with prejudice. 15 Generally speaking, judgment is entered when the district court files a separate document 16 setting forth the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), (c). Where a separate judgment is not filed, 17 judgment is deemed entered 150 days after the entry of the final order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 58(c)(2)(B); Burton v. Lee, 732 F. App'x 567, 569 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court ordered Plaintiff’s 19 claims dismissed on October 26, 2022. See Dkt. No. 76. Well over 150 days have passed since 20 entry of that order, meaning that judgment has long ago been deemed entered. Accordingly, 21 though Plaintiff brings her motion under L.R. 7-9(b)(3), which is the local rule concerning 22 reconsideration where there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 23 dispositive legal arguments,” the proper procedural vehicle for her claim is a motion for 24 reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 25 Rule 60(b) “provides an ‘exception to finality’ that ‘allows a party to seek relief from a 26 final judgment, and request reopening of [her] case, under a limited set of circumstances.’” United 27 Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 269, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010). 1 type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the 2 || opportunity to be heard.” Jd. at 271. Plaintiff's motion fails to meet this standard (or the Local 3 || Rule 7-9(b)(3) standard). Plaintiff claims, based on a newly-submitted 163-page “declaration,” 4 || that the Court “misinterpreted two reasons” she took a trip detailed in the 180-page complaint. 5 But those purportedly misconstrued facts had no bearing on the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs 6 || claims were barred by res judicata or otherwise subject to dismissal. Aside from this purported 7 || factual misunderstanding, Plaintiff identifies no legal error or clearly erroneous finding of a 8 || material fact that affected the outcome of the Court’s order dismissing her claims. See 9 || MacDonald v. United States, 677 F. App’x 362, 263 (9th Cir. 2017) (district court errs in denying 10 || a 60(b) motion only if the court “does not apply the correct law, rests its decision on a clearly 11 erroneous finding of a material fact, or applies the correct legal standard in a manner that results in 12 || the abuse of discretion”). 5 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. This case remains 14 || closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 11/1/2023 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28