Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GRANT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WESTAFF TEMPORARY AGENCY,

Defendant /

No. C-04-0277 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF

FROM JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 96)

Before the Court is plaintiff Dorothy Grant’s (“Grant”) motion for relief from judgment

on the ground of excusable neglect, filed June 6, 2006. The Court construes the motion as

a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (authorizing court to relieve party from final

judgment on basis of party’s excusable neglect). 

Grant has submitted no evidence in support of her motion, as the statements of fact

asserted therein are not set forth in a declaration filed under penalty of perjury. See 28

U.S.C. § 1746. Consequently, Grant has neither demonstrated excusable neglect for her

failure to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, nor has she demonstrated

that if she had opposed the motion, she would have submitted evidence sufficient to raise a

triable issue of material fact. See, e.g., Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th

Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion where moving party failed to set forth

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 97 Filed 06/09/06 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

evidence that “would have changed the outcome of the summary judgment hearing”).

Accordingly, Grant’s motion for relief from judgment is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 96.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 97 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2