Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00083/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00083-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Fix, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00083-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In January 2013, Plaintiffs sued Union Pacific Railroad alleging that Union Pacific

wrongfully closed a railroad crossing that provided the only access to their property in

violation of their prescriptive easement. On April 22, 2014, we denied both parties’ motions

for summary judgment and this case was set for trial (doc. 107). Five days before trial was

scheduled to begin, the parties notified the court that they had “settled all claims set forth in

the subject Complaint and Counterclaim,” and stipulated to the dismissal of the action with

prejudice, each party to bear their owns costs and fees (doc. 127). Pursuant to the parties’

stipulation, we entered an Order dismissing the action with prejudice back in May of 2014

(doc. 128). 

Now before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the Order of dismissal (doc.

129), Union Pacific’s response (doc. 135), and Plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 138). Plaintiffs request

that the Order be set aside due to (1) Union Pacific’s material misrepresentations and

Case 2:13-cv-00083-FJM Document 139 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

misconduct in connection with drafting the settlement agreement, and (2) Plaintiffs’ former

counsel’s negligence in the performance of his duties by causing this matter to be dismissed

with prejudice before a final, written settlement agreement was executed. Neither of these

reasons supports a Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., motion to set aside an order of dismissal.

In order to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, “the moving party must prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the [order of dismissal] was obtained through fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented the losing

party from fully and fairly presenting the [case].” DeSaracho v. Custom Food Machinery,

Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that the Order of dismissal was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or

other misconduct. Instead, the parties, each represented by counsel, chose to voluntarily

dismiss the action based on their understanding of the key terms to be included in the final

settlement agreement. Any subsequent disagreement between the parties as to the exact

nature of those key terms does not amount to clear and convincing evidence of fraud,

misrepresentation or misconduct. 

Either there was an accord which extinguished the underlying claims or there was not.

If there was an accord, the claims no longer exist and setting aside the dismissal cannot

revive them. The remedy for breach of the accord is a separate action against Union Pacific

for breach of contract. If there was no accord, and Plaintiffs’ counsel stipulated to dismiss

prematurely, the remedy is a malpractice action against counsel. There was no client

abandonment here and thus no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside order of dismissal (doc

129). 

DATED this 30th day of March, 2015.

Case 2:13-cv-00083-FJM Document 139 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 2