Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08056/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08056-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael J. Brosnahan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8056-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.

R. Civ. P. (doc. 23), defendants’ response (doc. 24), plaintiff’s reply (doc. 26); plaintiff’s

motion to compel defendants’ attorneys to submit an affidavit (doc. 25) and plaintiff’s motion

for stay of non-judicial proceedings (doc. 28). 

Plaintiff asks us to vacate our order entered on June 30, 2010, in which we concluded

that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim and accordingly granted defendants’

motion to dismiss (doc. 21). 

A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60, Fed. R. Civ. P., requires a showing

that the judgment sought to be vacated was entered through mistake or excusable neglect,

that newly discovered evidence exists, that the judgment was obtained by fraud or is

otherwise void, or that some other reason exists to vacate the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing. Instead, he largely repeats

arguments made in his response to the motion to dismiss, and levels charges about

Case 3:10-cv-08056-FJM Document 29 Filed 08/27/10 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 -

defendants’ “criminal” and “terrorist” conduct. 

We have fully considered each of plaintiff’s claims and will not revisit them now. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to vacate (doc. 23), and DENYING

plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ attorneys to submit an affidavit (doc. 25). Because

this case is closed we also DENY plaintiff’s motion for stay of non-judicial proceedings

(doc. 28). 

We again encourage plaintiff to seek the advice of counsel. If he cannot find a lawyer,

he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association

at (602) 257-4434. Plaintiff is advised that any further challenge to this court’s order should

be directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P.

3, 4. 

DATED this 26th day of August, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08056-FJM Document 29 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 2