Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03028/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03028-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:633 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AVRUM V. GRATCH, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of the

United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03028 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is the motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b) filed by Plaintiff Avrum V. Gratch, M.D. (“Dr. Gratch”). The

Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is

deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for January 13,

2006 is VACATED. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant legal

authority, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Dr. Gratch contends that he was fired as a part-time orthopedic surgeon for the Palo Alto

VA because of his age. Defendant R. James Nicholson, Secretary of the United States

Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“Defendant”) moved for summary judgment. Although

referenced in his brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dr. Gratch

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

 Dr. Gratch’s position on whether this evidence was actually filed is not clear. Dr.

Gratch’s counsel, Mary Dryovage, filed a declaration in support of the present motion to alter

or amend judgment, stating that her declaration in support of Dr. Gratch’s opposition to the

motion for summary judgment was filed on July 18, 2005. Later in the same declaration, Ms.

Dryovage asserts her declaration in support of Dr. Gratch’s opposition was manually filed on

July 19, 2005, along with Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. Unfortunately, the records of the Court do not

contain any indication that the Dryovage Declaration in support of Dr. Gratch’s opposition,

or any of the attached exhibits, was ever filed, manually or electronically.

2

did not file the Declaration of Mary Dryovage (“Dryovage Declaration”), or any of the exhibits

attached to this declaration.1 

Counsel for Dr. Gratch, Mary Dryovage, contends that due to a “clerical error” she had

no notice that “the manual e-filing of her declaration in opposition to the motion for summary

judgment had not been properly filed.” (Mot. at 1-2.) On July 28, 2005, the Clerk issued a

notice to Defendant regarding its manual filing of documents. Defendant manually filed, rather

than e-filed, voluminous exhibits in support of its motion for summary judgment. The Clerk’s

notice informed Defendant that the paper documents had been filed and docketed, but that

Defendant should also e-file the documents. (See Docket No. 54.) Dr. Gratch appears to

contend that the Clerk erred in issuing a notice to Defendant but not to him. 

On July 25, 2005, almost two months before the Court issued its order on Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed objections to the Dryovage Declaration based on

Dr. Gratch’s failure to file it and on his failure to timely serve the declaration. Dr. Gratch did

not respond to Defendant’s objections, nor seek leave of Court to file this evidence.

On September 20, 2005, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

The Court found that Defendant presented evidence of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for

terminating Dr. Gratch, and that, Dr. Gratch thus bore the burden to demonstrate that

Defendant’s articulated reason was pretextual. The Court concluded that, even if it considered

the Dryovage Declaration that had not been filed, Dr. Gratch failed to meet his burden to

demonstrate pretext. Dr. Gratch now moves to have the Court alter or amend its order granting

summary judgment and judgment in favor of Defendants. 

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

Dr. Gratch moves to alter or amend the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(a) (“Rule 60(a)”). This rule is inapplicable here. Rule 60(a) provides in pertinent

part: “Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein

arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own

initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.” Rule

60(a) authorizes a trial court to alter a judgment “to make a judgment reflect the actual

intentions of the court, plus the necessary implications. ... Errors correctable under Rule 60(a)

include those where what is written or recorded is not what the court intended to write or record.

... The error can be corrected whether it is made by a clerk or by the judge.” Blanton v.

Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987). In essence, Rule 60(a) enables a court to correct

“blunders in execution,” but not “instances where the court changes its mind, either because it

made a legal or factual mistake in making its original determination, or because on second

thought it has decided to exercise its discretion in a manner different from the way it was

exercised in the original determination.” Id. at 1577 n.2.

Dr. Gratch does not point to any “blunder in execution” supporting his motion, but

rather, asserts that the Court erred in not considering the evidence attached to the Dryovage

Declaration. To the extent Dr. Gratch contends the Clerk made an error by issuing a notice to

Defendant regarding its manual filing of exhibits, but not to him, such conduct is not a “blunder

in execution” covered by Rule 60(a), i.e., the entering of a judgment that does not actually

reflect the Court’s intention. Furthermore, the Clerk did not err by not issuing a similar notice

to Dr. Gratch because he did not manually file the documents at issue. Moreover, even if the

Court could construe Dr. Gratch’s motion as one properly brought under Rule 60(a), the notice

to Defendant and the lack of any similar notice to Dr. Gratch had no impact on the Court’s

decision to grant summary judgment. Even though the Dryovage Declaration had not been filed,

the Court reviewed the declaration and attached exhibits and determined that such evidence was

insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. (See Docket No. 61

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

(Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment) at 8.) Accordingly, the Court

denies Dr. Gratch’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a).

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

Dr. Gratch also moves to alter or amend the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”). Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part that: “On motion

and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment ... for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ... or (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). These

provisions are mutually exclusive, meaning that a party may only move on one of these grounds. 

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 393

(1993). Although required to, Dr. Gratch did not specify which grounds on which he is moving. 

However, even if Dr. Gratch could move pursuant to both Rule 60(b)(1) and (b)(2), Dr. Gratch’s

motion fails on both grounds.

“To qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the movant must demonstrate mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co.,

972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations and citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has

made clear that “[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney

provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Id. Moreover, if the failure to submit

evidentiary materials is solely due to an attorney’s carelessness, it would be an abuse of

discretion for the court to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1). See id. (citing with approval

Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990)); see also

Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 1999 WL 33292942, * 6 (N.D. Cal. June 15,

1999). 

Other than his assertion that he did not realize the Dryovage Declaration had not been

properly filed, Dr. Gratch does not provide a reason for his failure to file the evidence in

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Whether his failure to file was due to

ignorance or carelessness, neither provides a basis for relief from judgment. See Engleson, 972

F.2d at 1043. Moreover, Dr. Gratch did have notice of his deficiency. On July 25, 2005, almost

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 4 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

 The remainder of Dr. Gratch’s motion is an improper attempt bring a motion for

reconsideration. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party must seek leave of Court before

filing a motion for reconsideration. Moreover, a motion for reconsideration may only be

filed before entry of judgment. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Dr. Gratch did not satisfy either of

these requirements. Therefore, the Court will not address the portion of Dr. Gratch’s motion

which merely reargues the merits of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

5

two months before the Court issued its order on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

Defendant filed objections to the Dryovage Declaration pointing out Dr. Gratch’s failure to file

this evidence. After having such notice, Dr. Gratch did not respond to Defendant’s objections,

nor seek leave of Court to file the Dryovage Declaration. Finally, even though Dr. Gratch did

not file the Dryovage Declaration, the Court had reviewed the citations referenced in Dr.

Gratch’s opposition brief and concluded that such evidence would have been insufficient to

defeat summary judgment. (See Docket No. 61 (Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment) at 8.) Thus, even if Dr. Gratch had demonstrated mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) justifying relief from judgment, the

outcome would not change. Even considering the Dryovage Declaration, Dr. Gratch did not

present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Thus, the Court denies Dr. Gratch’s motion to the extent it is premised on Rule 60(b)(1).

Dr. Gratch’s motion also fails pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) (“any other reason justifying

relief from the operation of the judgment”). “To justify relief under subjection (6), a party must

show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ suggesting that the party is faultless....” Pioneer

Investment, 507 U.S. at 393. Dr. Gratch has made no showing either of extraordinary

circumstances or that he and his counsel were faultless. Accordingly, the denies Dr. Gratch’s

motion to the extent it is premised on Rule 60(b)(1).2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Gratch’s motion to alter or amend judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 5 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

6

Case 3:04-cv-03028-JSW Document 86 Filed 01/11/06 Page 6 of 6