Mirchandani v. BMO Harris Bank
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani moved for relief from a prior judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from appealing the original dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, which requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances that prevented the party from pursuing an appeal. The order notes that the plaintiff did not appeal the original dismissal and failed to show why he could not have done so. Additionally, the court noted the approximately 19-month delay in filing the motion, which further supports the denial under Rule 60(c)(1). The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, cites binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority, and applies that standard to the facts (failure to appeal and lack of extraordinary circumstances). It also appropriately considers the timeliness of the motion under Rule 60(c)(1).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HARESH MIRCHANDANI and Case No. 3:17-cv-02090-BTM-BGS INDRA MIRCHANDANI, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 Plaintiffs, RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 14 v. 15 BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., [ECF No. [#20] 16 successor to M&I MARSHALL & 17 ILSLEY BANK, 18 Defendant. 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiff Haresh Mirchandani’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for relief 21 from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6). (ECF 22 No. 20.) Notably, this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on 23 July 16, 2018 based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) 24 Plaintiff did not appeal such dismissal. Because Plaintiff’s instant motion fails to 25 demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from pursuing 26 an appeal of such dismissal, he has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to relief 27 under Rule 60(b)(6). See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarers 28 Int'l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971) (“In order to bring 1 himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b)(6) a petitioner is required to establish 2 ||the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him 3 unable to prosecute an appeal.” (citing Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 4 (1949); and Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950))). Nor has Plaintiff 5 ||demonstrated any other basis for relief, let alone that his approximately nineteen- 6 ||month delay in seeking relief was reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 7 ||Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: February 27, 2020 10 Bay Tid. Mathur 14 Honor le Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28