Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05326/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05326-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause which prohibits Miletak from

disclosing even the existence of the settlement except in certain circumstances which do not apply

here. Through the various filings made in this case, Miletak has now made the existence of the

agreement a matter of public record, although the actual agreement has been sealed by the Court. 

The Court will not discuss any of the terms of the settlement agreement in this Order.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICK MILETAK,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-5326 EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(Docket No. 25)

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff Nick Miletak filed a pro se motion to set aside a settlement

agreement1

 he reached in 2013 with Defendant AT&T Services to resolve this litigation, and asks

this Court to set this action for trial. Docket No. 25 (Motion). Miletak brings the instant motion

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3). See id. The motion is wholly without

merit and is therefore DENIED. The hearing on Miletak’s motion, currently scheduled for July 16,

2015, is accordingly VACATED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) provides that the Court “may relieve a party or its

legal representative from a final judgment” due to “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)

(emphasis added). Here, Miletak’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion fails for at least two fundamental reasons. 

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 37 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

First, Miletak admits in his motion that his opponent, Defendant AT&T Services, did not commit

any fraud. See Motion at 2 (“This motion in no way attempts to suggest wrongdoing by the

Defendant or its counsel. Plaintiff believes that at all times during litigation the Defendant and its

counsel acted ethically and negotiated in good faith.”). Rather, Miletak claims that his own attorney

defrauded him by failing to disclose that he did not have professional liability insurance and by

refusing to immediately withdraw from representing Miletak upon Miletak’s request. Even if this

conduct could be called fraudulent, Miletak’s attorney is not an “opposing party,” and thus Miletak

is not eligible for relief under Rule 60(b)(3). See Chang v. Rockridge Manor Condominium, No. C07-4005 EMC, 2010 WL 3063185, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) (Chen, J.) (recognizing that “Rule

60(b)(3) concerns misconduct by an opposing party only”). In any event, Miletak’s motion is

untimely. Rule 60(c)(1) provides that any motion for relief from final judgment brought under Rule

60(b)(3) must be brought “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(c)(1). Here, Miletak’s motion was filed more than one year after the entry of final judgment in

this case. Thus, his Rule 60(b)(3) motion is without merit. See Chang, 2010 WL 3063185, at *4

(finding Rule 60 motion time barred because of failure to comply with Rule 60(c)(1)’s one year

rule). 

Miletak’s motion under Rule 60(d)(3) is similarly without merit. Rule 60(d)(3) gives the

court power to “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). As this Court

has previously explained, “‘fraud on the court’ is read narrowly to mean ‘only that species of fraud

which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so

that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases

that are presented for adjudication.’” Chang, 2010 WL 3063185, at *4 (quoting Appling v. State

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003)). Such fraud “must be established by

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 37 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

clear and convincing evidence. Chang, 2010 WL 3063185, at *4 (citing England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d

304, 309-10 (9th Cir. 1960)). Miletak has presented no such evidence of fraud on the court, nor

could he. The claimed fraud was perpetrated by his attorney against him, and has nothing to do with

the “integrity of the judicial process itself.” Id. at *4.

This order disposes of Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 37 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 3