Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00806/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00806-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157(d) Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

1

3:16-cv-0806-CAB-(BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re Jordana Bauman,

Debtor.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-0806-CAB-(BLM)

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RELIEF 

FROM JUDGMENT OR TO 

VACATE SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 

ORDER 

[Doc. Nos. 19, 20]

On April 4, 2016, Debtor’s brother, Mel Marin, filed a motion for withdrawal of 

reference. [Doc. No. 1.] 

On April 25, 2016, this Court was unable to ascertain the particular motion or legal 

issue movant sought to withdraw and issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). [Doc. No. 

5.] On May 12, 2016, Debtor responded to the OSC. [Doc. No. 6.] Debtor identified her 

“collateral attack against dismissal or her prior Chapter 13 case” and “debtor’s contempt 

claims against creditors who have been looting her estate and harassing her” as the specific 

issues to withdraw. [Id. at 1-2.] Further, Debtor asserted that her brother has standing 

because he has a lien on debtor’s property. [Id. at 4.] On May 16, 2016, Debtor filed a 

supplemental response to the OSC identifying an additional five issues she sought 

withdrawal of. [Doc. No. 8.] 

Case 3:16-cv-00806-CAB-JMA Document 21 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-0806-CAB-(BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

While the OSC was under submission, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the 

underlying petition1. In light of the dismissal, on September 6, 2016, this Court denied as 

moot the motion for withdrawal of reference and ordered that the Clerk of the Court close 

the case. [Doc. No. 11.] On the same day, the Clerk of Court entered judgment and closed 

the case. [Doc. No. 12.]

On April 24, 2017, Mel Marin filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment or to Vacate 

Order of 9/26/2016 Denying Withdrawal of the Reference of Contempt Motions and 

Adversarial Actions as to Wells Fargo Defendants in Case 16-00301-CL-13 from the 

Bankruptcy Court (Rule 60). [Doc. No. 19.] On the same day, Debtor filed a Motion for 

Relief from Judgment or to Vacate Order of 9/6/2016 Denying Withdrawal of the 

Reference. [Doc. No. 20.] Both motions were made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 60.

Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 

of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 

(9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by the adverse party; 

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and other reason justifying 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a motion brought under it 

“must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a 

year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(c).

The Court begins by noting that the practically identical motions currently before it 

are as muddled as the original motion for withdrawal of reference. Debtor and her brother 

 

1

In re Jordana Baumann, Bankr. Case No. 16-00301, Docket No. 149 (September 1, 2016).

Case 3:16-cv-00806-CAB-JMA Document 21 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-0806-CAB-(BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

do not articulate under which provision of Rule 60 the motions for reconsideration and 

requests to vacate the September 6, 2016 Order are being sought. That being said, the 

Court has reviewed the motions carefully and concluded that Debtor and her brother have 

not presented any grounds for relief under any of the six permissible grounds. See, e.g., 

Marly Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 

2009) (“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, of if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”). 

Even under the catchall provision of clause (6), Debtor and her brother have not 

provided any evidence that demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” that would 

warrant relief from the judgment. Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (a 

party is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates “extraordinary 

circumstances” to justify relief). See also Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“[a] party is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) where ‘extraordinary 

circumstances prevented him from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous 

judgment.”). Debtor and her brother have not met their burden of showing the existence

of “‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez 

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (citation omitted).

Moreover, to the extent that Debtor and her brother may be relying on Rule 60(b)(6), 

the Court considers the current motions untimely because they were not filed within a 

reasonable time after the entry of judgment. Hamilton, 374 F.3d at 825 (motions based on 

the first three clauses must be brought within one year of the entry of judgment, while 

motions relying upon the fourth, fifth or sixth clause must be brought “within a reasonable 

time.”). The bankruptcy was dismissed in September 2016 and this Court issued its Order 

in the same month. Filing Rule 60 motions eight months later is not within a reasonable 

time. Even if Debtor and her brother’s delay in moving for reconsideration “may be 

attributable to inattention or inexperience [] neither deficiency constitutes an ‘extraordinary 

circumstance’ that justifies Rule 60(b) relief.” Id.

Case 3:16-cv-00806-CAB-JMA Document 21 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-0806-CAB-(BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the foregoing reasons, the Motions for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60

[Doc. Nos. 19, 20] are DENIED and the September 6, 2016 Order remains in effect.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00806-CAB-JMA Document 21 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4