Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00228/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 - 03cv0228

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVA LEIGH SMITH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 03cv0228 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(B)

vs. MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant.

On December 19, 2005 the court granted Defendant’s cross motion for summary

judgment and denied Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on her claim for

supplemental disability income. On December 27, 2006 Plaintiff filed the present

motion to set aside or vacate the judgment. 

Rule 60(b) generally provides that a party may seek relief from a final judgment

for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an

adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied or otherwise

altered; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Any request for

relief for reasons (1), (2), or (3), must be made within one year of entry of judgment.

Id. Here, the only applicable provision of Rule 60 is subsection (6) which requires a

moving party to show “extraordinary circumstances” indicating that the delay is the

result of circumstances outside the party’s control. Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v.

Case 3:03-cv-00228-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 02/06/07 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 - 03cv0228

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993). 

Here, the court denies the motion to vacate the earlier judgment. Plaintiff argues

that she did not receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) until

February 2006 when counsel provided her a copy of the R & R. In providing Plaintiff

a copy of the R & R, her counsel inadvertently provided her with copies of medical

records belonging to other individuals. She also argues that she was the victim of a

purse snatching on August 16, 2005 and that on January 31, 2005 she witnessed a

violent pedestrian vehicle accident. While the reasons proffered by Plaintiff tend to

show that events outside her control may have contributed to her ability to timely assert

any Objections to the R & R, the court notes that Plaintiff had over one year to move

for Rule 60(b) relief. Even assuming that Plaintiff’s proffered reasons justify several

months of delay, she fails to establish that the delay is the result of circumstances

outside her control. Further, even if considered timely, the court notes that Plaintiff

fails to identify grounds of fraud, mistake, or inadvertence warranting relief on the

merits of her claim. 

In sum, the motion for Rule 60(b) relief is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 6, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:03-cv-00228-JM-JMA Document 22 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2