Petitt v. Altman

[4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] KARLENE PETITT, Cause No. C21-1366RSL [8] Plaintiff, ORDER [9] v. [10] DAVID B. ALTMAN, [11] Defendant. [13] On January 31, 2023, the Court found that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the [14] 15 applicable statute of limitation and dismissed the above-captioned matter. Judgment was entered [16] that same day. Plaintiff filed a timely “Motion for Modification of and Relief from Judgment [17] Pursuant to Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b)(1), and Rule 60(b)(2).” Dkt. # 31.1 [18] 19 Relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) may [20] be granted when the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed [21] clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in [22] 23 controlling law.” Stoner v. Does, 1 - 10, 830 F. App’x 547 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Sch. Dist. [23] No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Vacating a prior [27] 1 Plaintiff specifically disavows any intent to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil 28 Rule 7(h). 1 judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of [2] finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. [3] 2003). [4] 5 Plaintiff does not offer newly discovered evidence that can be considered by the Court or [6] that is otherwise relevant to the dispositive statute of limitations issue. The details regarding [7] what plaintiff learned in October 2018 were known to her since that time and cannot plausibly [8] 9 be characterized as “newly discovered.” With regards to plaintiff’s recitation of what a third10 party, Dr. Bruce Chien, told her in March 2022 and Dr. Chien’s recitation of facts he learned [11] after the fact (and about which he admits he has no personal knowledge), the declarations are [12] 13 inadmissible under Fed. R. Ev. 602 and 802. Just as importantly, they do not offer any fresh [14] insight into when plaintiff knew or should have known that Dr. Altman acted with fraudulent or [15] deceitful intent. Nor does plaintiff argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling [16] 17 law or that the adverse judgment was manifestly unjust. Instead, plaintiff argues that the Court [18] improperly applied the motion to dismiss standard and improperly considered documents [19] outside the pleadings. The allegations of the complaint and judicial records related to plaintiff’s [20] 21 earlier lawsuit asserting the same fraud claim at issue here were properly considered under the [22] appropriate standard. The Court did not err in concluding that the record demonstrates as a [23] matter of law that plaintiff knew or should have known of her fraud claim more than three years [23] 25 before the complaint was filed. Accordingly, relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted. [26] The Court therefore turns to plaintiff’s request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil [27] Procedure 60(b)(1), which allows the Court to relieve a party from an Order based on “mistake, [28] 1 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Such mistakes include the Court’s substantive [2] errors of law or fact. Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. [3] 2004). In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the movant “must show that the district [4] 5 court committed a specific error.” Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989). [6] Plaintiff has not done so. [7] Finally, Rule 60(b)(2) identifies “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable [8] 9 diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)” as [10] grounds for relief from a judgment or order. The evidence regarding what plaintiff learned in [11] October 2018 is not “newly discovered,” and the declarations submitted are inadmissible and [12] 13 irrelevant to the limitations issue. [15] For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment or order is [16] 17 DENIED. [19] Dated this 5th day of May, 2023. [21] 22 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge