Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02229/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02229-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Sport Collectors Guild Incorporated, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Bank of America NA,

Defendant.

No. CV-16-02229-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

On September 14, 2018, the Court granted Bank of America NA’s (“BANA”) 

motion for summary judgment, and this matter was dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 102.) 

Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed three separate motions seeking to alter, amend, or set 

aside that Order. (Docs. 109, 118, 130.) The first two motions were denied. (Docs. 117, 

127.) Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the second motion, filed the instant motion seeking 

to set aside not only the September 2018 Order but also a January 2018 Order (Doc. 130), 

and then voluntarily dismissed the appeal. The mandate granting the dismissal has now 

been entered. (Doc. 133.)

The scope and purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to “secure the just, 

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs note that they “have incurred over $200,000.00 in fees and 

expenses in this litigation,” Doc. 130 at 14 n.4, yet they continue to file meritless motions. 

Here, Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), which permits a court to 

“set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” 

Case 2:16-cv-02229-ROS Document 134 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

The fraud on the court doctrine is a strict one. “[R]elief from judgment for fraud on 

the court is ‘available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.’” United States v. 

Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. 

Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998)). In the Ninth Circuit, fraud on the court must “‘harm[] 

the integrity of the judicial process’ . . . [and] be an ‘intentional, material 

misrepresentation’”; in other words, “fraud on the court ‘must involve an unconscionable 

plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.’” Id. at 

1168 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Furthermore, “relief for fraud on the 

court is available only where the fraud was not known at the time of settlement or entry of 

judgment.” Id. (collecting cases).

The Court need not delve into Plaintiffs’ argument that BANA’s November 6, 20171

statements “that [the Small Business Administration (“SBA”)] guaranteed the loan and 

paid BANA,” and BANA’s February 15, 2018 statement “that it is an undisputed fact that 

Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan” constituted fraud on the court. (Doc. 130 at 13–14.) It is 

undisputed that neither Plaintiff ever paid the $146,000 remaining on the loan back, as 

Plaintiff Patrice Lagnier testified. (Doc. 82 at 2, Doc. 87 at 5.) And because “the Court’s 

conclusions did not hinge on whether the loan was, in fact, eligible to be guaranteed by the 

SBA,” Doc. 102 at 6, and the Court noted “this Court has not been misled by BANA’s 

representations . . . [which] stated that Plaintiffs’ loan was extended as an SBA-guaranteed 

loan and treated as an SBA-guaranteed loan by the SBA. . . . Nothing suggests BANA’s 

counsel misled the Court,” Doc. 102 at 12–13, Plaintiffs cannot possibly argue that the 

alleged fraud was not known at the time of entry of judgment. Sierra Pacific, 862 F.3d at 

1168.

By repeatedly filing meritless motions, Plaintiffs are wasting the time and resources 

of themselves, BANA, and this Court. BANA may not have been forthcoming about the 

ultimate fate of the money, but it was not a secret as Plaintiffs were aware prior to filing 

this lawsuit that the right to collect on the loan belonged to BANA and not the SBA. (Doc. 

1 Plaintiffs later state these statements were made on November 16, 2018, but this appears 

to be a typographical error. Compare Doc. 130 at 3 with Doc. 130 at 13.

Case 2:16-cv-02229-ROS Document 134 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

131 at 8.) This Court will not entertain any more filings by Plaintiffs that relate to the SBA 

guarantee of the loan. Should Plaintiffs file such a motion in violation of this Order, such 

motion may be summarily dismissed and sanctions may be imposed.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside the Court’s Orders of 1/5/2018 

and 9/14/2018 Pursuant to FRCP 60(d)(3) (Doc. 130) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Should Plaintiffs file another motion relating to the SBA guarantee of the loan, such motion 

may be summarily dismissed and sanctions may be imposed.

Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-02229-ROS Document 134 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3