Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01586/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01586-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mark Sanchez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-01586-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Mark 

Sanchez moves to set aside the judgment entered against him on May 24, 2013. 

Doc. 158. The motion is fully briefed, and oral argument has not been requested. 

Plaintiff also moves to have the record corrected, alleging that the Clerk’s Office failed to 

file his transcript order on time, thus making it appear he had not complied with the Time 

Schedule Order filed by the Ninth Circuit. Defendant UPS filed no response to this 

motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to set aside 

the judgment and grant his motion to correct the record. 

 Plaintiff claims in this case that Defendant violated the Americans with 

Disabilities Act by refusing to allow him to resume work as a feeder driver after a period 

of disability. Doc. 1 at 1-4. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of 

Defendant. Doc. 139. 

 Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. Doc. 152. As a result, the Court has three 

options: it may (1) defer considering the Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion, (2) deny the motion, 

Case 2:10-cv-01586-DGC Document 164 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the Court of Appeals remands for that 

purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). The Court 

will deny the motion. 

 A judgment may be set aside under Rule 60(b) for the following reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

that was previously unavailable; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an 

opposing party; (4) when the judgment is void; (5) when the judgment has been satisfied, 

released, discharged, or was based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or 

vacated, or would be inequitable if applied prospectively; or (6) any other reason that 

justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion to reconsider or set aside the judgment 

may not be used to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that 

could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 

U.S. 471, 485 (2008). 

 Plaintiff argues that Defendant committed fraud on the Court during the trial, and 

therefore appears to make his motion under Rule 60(b)(3). Plaintiffs generally must 

prove fraud on a court by clear and convincing evidence, and must also show that the 

fraud prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case. See U.S. v. Estate of 

Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff alleges that opposing counsel 

misstated the nature of another lawsuit against Defendant outside the hearing of the jury, 

and that this misstatement somehow affected the opening statement made by defense 

counsel during trial. Doc. 158 at 3. The Court cannot conclude that the alleged 

statements were false or misleading, that they have been shown to be fraudulent by clear 

and convincing evidence, or that they had any effect on the trial. The statements provide 

no basis for relief under Rule 60(b). 

 Plaintiff also argues that admission of certain evidence violated Federal Rule of 

Evidence 408. He claims that Defendant should not have been permitted to present 

evidence regarding Plaintiff’s previous medical examinations. Doc. 158 at 4. Plaintiff 

provides no explanation as to why this issue could not have been raised during trial, nor 

Case 2:10-cv-01586-DGC Document 164 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

has he cited authority to show that such an evidentiary error, if it occurred, provides a 

basis for setting aside a judgment under Rule 60(b). The alleged Rule 408 violation 

therefore provides no basis for relief under Rule 60(b). 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment (Doc. 158) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to correct the record (Doc. 163) is granted. The Clerk 

shall correct the record to show a Transcript Order on July 17, 2013. 

 Dated this 24th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:10-cv-01586-DGC Document 164 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 3