Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Janet Malauulu's motion to set aside a prior judgment of summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Set Aside Judgment Denied“The Motion to Set Aside the Judgment 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 a party from taking timely action. The order notes that Plaintiff waited five months after being appointed special administrator to file the motion, which the court deemed outside a 'reasonable time.' Furthermore, the court noted that even with the newly acquired standing, the underlying claims were barred by the statute of limitations, meaning the relief would not have been available regardless. The denial follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 60(b)(6)), the standard of review (extraordinary circumstances), and the procedural history (summary judgment based on lack of standing and tolling concerns). It applies the standard to the facts (five-month delay after acquiring standing) and notes the futility of relief due to the statute of limitations. It cites the relevant Ninth Circuit authority for both the tolling issue and the Rule 60(b)(6) standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANET MALAUULU, as CASE NO. 18cv2595-LAB (AGS) 11 representative for the Estate of 12 Johnny Malauulu, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE 13 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT [Dkt. 25] 14 vs. 15 WAL-MART STORES, INC., et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 On July 12, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant 19 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), finding that Plaintiff Janet Malauulu had 20 no legal relationship with her deceased brother-in-law, Johnny Malauulu, 21 whose estate is the real party in interest. Dkt. 23. It appeared to the Court 22 that Plaintiff’s motivation for filing the action was, at least in part, the hope of 23 tolling the soon-to-expire limitations period while she pursued standing. Id. 24 at 4. The Ninth Circuit has rejected this practice, so the Court entered 25 judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. Id. at 4-5 (citing U.S. for Use & Benefit of Wulff 26 v. CMA, Inc., 890 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1989)). 27 Plaintiff was named special administrator of Mr. Malauulu’s estate on 28 February 14, 2020. Five months later—outside a “reasonable time” for such 1 motion—she asked the Court to set aside the judgment under 2 || Rule 60(b)(6). Dkt. 25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (setting “reasonable time” limit 3 Rule 60(b)(6) motions). That Rule provides relief from a judgment “only 4 ||where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 5 |}action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” In re International 6 || Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 The Court already ruled that Plaintiff wouldn’t be able to support her 8 || claims in this case with untimely-acquired standing, if she managed to get it. 9 || Now she’s gotten it, and she can’t use it to support her claims. Plaintiff isn’t 10 || entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 11 The Motion to Set Aside the Judgment is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: November 2, 2020 lam / A (Buywy 16 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28