Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05326/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05326-7/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

 In his motion for reconsideration, Miletak now concedes that his alternative argument

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) “is NOT an appropriate remedy for the current

motion.” Docket No. 38 at 3 (capitalization in original). 

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 FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 38)

On July 2, 2015, this Court issued an order denying pro se Plaintiff Nick Miletak’s motion to

set aside the settlement agreement in this case, finding that Miletak’s motion was both untimely and

“wholly without merit.” Docket No. 37. Miletak has now filed a motion for reconsideration of this

Court’s July 2 order, arguing that the Court erroneously concluded that Miletak’s attorney had not

committed fraud on the Court,1 and thus refusing to permit Miletak to set aside the settlement

agreement reached in May 2013. See Docket Nos. 23, 37. Miletak’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

This Court’s Civil Local Rules provide that a party seeking reconsideration must

demonstrate at least one of the following: (1) “a material difference in fact or law exists from that

which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is

sought,” and the party “applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the

interlocutory order” despite exercising “reasonable diligence”; or (2) “[t]he emergence of new

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; or (3) “[a] manifest failure

by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

Court.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(3). Miletak’s motion for reconsideration does not satisfy any of

these factors. Instead, Miletak’s motion for reconsideration is an impermissible repetition of the

arguments this Court has previously rejected. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(c) (providing that “[n]o

motion . . . for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party

in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have

reconsidered”). Miletak citation to a smattering of “new” cases (all decided between 1878 and

1993) does not satisfy the standard of Rule 7-9. See Docket No. 38 (Mot.) at 3-4; see also Civil

Local Rule 7-9(b)(1). Moreover, the “new” cases cited by Milteak are not on point, and Miletak’s

position is still incorrect on the merits. Miletak contends that his attorney’s alleged

misrepresentations to him regarding whether the attorney was complying with the terms of their

retainer agreement amounts to fraud on the Court. It does not. See Docket No. 37. Nor is Miletak

correct in his assertion that his attorney’s apparent refusal to immediately withdraw from his

representation of Miletak constitutes fraud on the Court. 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.” Docket No. 37 (citations omitted). Thus, Miletak’s motion for reconsideration is

denied. 

Miletak is further advised that this Court’s Local Rules permit the imposition of sanctions

against litigants who file improper motions for reconsideration, such as those that merely repeat

arguments previously rejected by the Court. See Local Rule 7-9(c) (providing that “[a]ny party who

violates this restriction [against repetition of argument] shall be subject to appropriate sanctions”). 

This Court has now twice found that Miletak’s recent filings have been without any legal merit. 

Should Miletak again file a motion for reconsideration or other request for relief that this Court

deems meritless, the Court will seriously consider the imposition of appropriate monetary sanctions

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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

against Miletak (e.g., ordering Miletak to reimburse Defendant AT&T Services for the cost and

expense of responding to Miletak’s meritless filings). 

Defendant’s motion to file portions of its opposition papers under seal is GRANTED. 

Docket No. 39. 

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 38 and 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 3:12-cv-05326-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 4