Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01883/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01883-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

II 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

12 OCT 16 

BY:~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Cathy Reis, et aI., CASE NO. 04-CV-1883 BEN (BLM) 

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

vs. REOPEN CASE 

Fannie Mae, et aL, [ECFNo.32] 

Defendants. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Cathy Reis's "Motion to Reopen Case No. _ Due to 

Patent Dispute and Loss of Value ofAssets," which the Court construes as a motion for relief from 

a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 32. 

Plaintiff s motion comes more than seven years after this Court dismissed the underlying action for 

improper venue, and six years after it denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. 

"Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request re-opening of his 

case, under a limited set of circumstances." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). lfthe 

request is based on fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence, the motion "shall be made ... not 

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken." FED. R. CIV. P. 

60( c)(1). lfbased on various other enumerated reasons, or "any other reason that justifies relief," the 

motion must be made "within a reasonable time." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(I). 

Plaintiff has attached several hundred pages of supporting documents, yet the basis for her 

motion is difficult to discern. She appears largely to repeat claims of intellectual property theft from 

- 1 - 04cvOl883 

Case 3:04-cv-01883-BEN-BLM Document 33 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2006. See ECF No. 23. Plaintiff did not file the motion within a reasonable time and has not 

2 demonstrated that the requested relief is justified. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. The 

3 motion hearing scheduled for November 5, 2012 before this Court is vacated. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

6 DATED: Octobe~2012 7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 2- 04cvOl883 

Case 3:04-cv-01883-BEN-BLM Document 33 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 2