Ashkan Rajaee v. Tyler Brandon Davis, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which argued that a prior state court judgment was void and that the federal court's dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was therefore invalid. The court denied the motion, holding that Rule 60 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking relief from state court judgments.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Relief under Rule 60“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 164] is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's motion was an attempt to use Rule 60 to challenge a state court judgment, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court correctly cited Ninth Circuit authority establishing that Rule 60 is a procedural rule that does not create subject matter jurisdiction. Since the court previously dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks the power to grant relief from that dismissal via Rule 60 if the underlying claim remains subject to the Rooker-Feldman bar. The reasoning is legally sound. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Order to Show Cause“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.” | agree with court The court denied the motion to strike as 'without merit' and characterized it as an attempt to harass. While the reasoning is brief, it is consistent with the court's discretion to manage its docket and deny frivolous or harassing motions, particularly in a case where judgment has already been entered. The court noted it did not rely on the filings, which is a valid basis for denying a motion to strike. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which was the basis for the initial dismissal, and correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent to support the proposition that Rule 60 cannot be used to create subject matter jurisdiction over state court judgments. The court's reasoning directly addresses the plaintiff's argument that the state judgment was void, by pointing out that the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear such a claim in the first place. The denial of the motion to strike is also procedurally appropriate.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHKAN RAJAEE, Case No.: 24-cv-1-RSH-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. RULE 60 MOTION 14 TYLER BRANDON DAVIS, et al., [ECF Nos. 164, 172] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before this Court is a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 60, filed by plaintiff Askhan Rajaee. ECF No. 164. As set forth below, the Court 20 denies the motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against 41 23 named defendants and Does 1 through 99. ECF No. 1. The Complaint’s seventeen claims 24 focused on a dispute between Plaintiff and defendant Tyler Davis, a former business 25 partner at TopDevz, LLC (“TopDevz”), over ownership of TopDevz. Plaintiff alleged that 26 the dispute resulted in an erroneous arbitration award against him, which was then 27 confirmed by a judgment of the California Superior Court, all as a result of fraud committed 1 by Defendants. Plaintiff asked this Court to vacate the state court’s judgment affirming the 2 arbitration award; to declare that the judgment is “void and unenforceable”; and to enjoin 3 Defendants from collecting on or enforcing the judgment. ECF No. 1 at 74-75. Plaintiff 4 also sought damages. Id. at 75. 5 On April 11, 2024, upon motions by Defendants, the Court dismissed the Complaint 6 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 7 138. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was a de facto appeal of the judgment 8 of the Superior Court. Id. at 8-11. This Court entered a judgment of dismissal on April 12, 9 2024. ECF No. 139. Plaintiff did not appeal. 10 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Rule 60 motion. ECF No. 164. Plaintiff’s 11 motion argues that the Superior Court judgment against him was “void and procured by 12 fraud,” and that by extension this Court’s order of dismissal pursuant to Rooker-Feldman 13 is also void. Id. at 7. The motion is fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 165-70. 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff’s motion invokes Rule 60(b)(4), (b)(6), and (d)(3). ECF No. 164 at 2. Those 16 portions of Rule 60 provide: 17 (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or 18 its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for 19 the following reasons:
20 . . . . 21 (4) the judgment is void; [or] 22 23 . . . .
24 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 25 (d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court's 26 power to: 27 1 (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. ; The Court previously dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 4 No. 138. Plaintiff's motion does not address the analysis in the Court’s order, but rather ° argues—just as he did in opposing the motion to dismiss—that the Superior Court 6 judgment was void and the product of fraud. Rule 60 is a rule of procedure, but does not confer subject matter jurisdiction that is otherwise lacking. See Holder v. Simon, 384 F. 8 App’x 669, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court properly dismissed [the] complaint sua 9 sponte because Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a 10 claim for relief from a state court judgment.”); Jn re Reyes, No. EC-18-1229-BSL, 2019 WL 1759749, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2019) (“The law is quite clear that Civil Rule 60(b) 12 applies to relief from judgment of a federal court; it does not provide a basis for subject 13 matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment.”’) (collecting cases); M4 Meyer v. Litzenberg, No. C 16-3010 WHA, 2016 WL 7491608 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2016) 15 (“[N]o part of Rule 60 confers subject-matter jurisdiction.”). The Court has no more subject 16 matter jurisdiction now that it did at the time it dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit.! M7 Hr. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 164] is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 20 fekut Cle Dated: October 31, 2025 21 Hon. Robert S. Huie » United States District Judge 23 24 ||! Plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike various documents filed by defendants and to issue an order to show cause regarding sanctions. ECF Nos. 172-74. The motion recites 5 a list of grievances and is without merit. Additionally, the Court did not rely on the filings 26 Plaintiff seeks to strike. The motion appears to be an attempt to harass □□□□□□□□□□ opponents, in a case in which judgment was entered over a year and a half ago. The Court 7 || DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 28