Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT NEVILLE, MD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGUERITE DILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv321-CAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

RULE 60 MOTION [Doc. No. 34] AND 

REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC 

HEARING [Doc. No. 35]

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Neville (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Voluntary 

Dismissal” [Doc. No. 25], which this Court deemed an ex parte motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(2) [Doc. No. 26]. On September 6, 2019, pursuant 

to its complete discretion under Rule 41(a)(2), the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, 

dismissed the action with prejudice, and awarded Defendant $1,000 in costs. [Doc. No. 

30.] On September 6, 2019, judgment was entered accordingly for Defendant. [Doc. No. 

31.] On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Rule 60 Motion. [Doc. No. 34.] On 

December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for telephonic hearing on pending Rule 60 

motion. [Doc. No. 35.] For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED.

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 12/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

A. Legal Standard.

Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 

of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 

(9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final 

judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by 

the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and 

other reason justifying relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a 

motion brought under it “must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), 

(2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the 

proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).

B. Discussion.

Here, Plaintiff does not state under which of the six permissible grounds he is 

seeking relief under Rule 60. Rather, he argues with a prior ruling in the case where the 

magistrate judge required his personal appearance at a hearing.1 However, it was 

Plaintiff who requested dismissal of his case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(2). 

[Doc. No. 25, 26.] Under Rule 41(a)(2), this Court has complete discretion to grant such 

a request under the terms it deems appropriate. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 

(9th Cir. 2001). That is exactly what this Court did. [Doc. No. 30.] Plaintiff has not 

shown any “exceptional circumstances” to warrant Rule 60 relief from that ruling. 

Engleson, 972 F.2d at 1044.

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

 

1

In support of that argument, Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Daniel G. Abel, who apparently is a 

friend of Plaintiff’s and represents that he is an attorney. However, Mr. Abel is not an attorney of record 

in this case. Therefore, Mr. Abel’s personal opinions regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case, as well as 

Plaintiff’s financial and physical health, lack foundation and are irrelevant.

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 12/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

C. Conclusion.

For the reasons set forth above, the Rule 60 motion and the Request for Telephonic 

Hearing are DENIED.

Dated: December 27, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 12/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3