Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00077/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Raymond Barlowe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ken Ellegard- Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona

limited liability company, dba Riverview

Toyota; Landcar Management, Ltd., a

Utah limited partnership, dba The Larry

Miller Group of Automotive Companies;

and Stephen D. Gaines, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0077-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Modify Judgment, filed

on June 29, 2010. (docket # 11) Because the District Court does not have jurisdiction to

modify or vacate the April 21, 2010 Judgment, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, “seeking compensatory and

punitive damages for injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of employment discrimination

and retaliation by the Defendants on the basis of national origin, and other wrongful conduct

by the Defendants.” (docket # 1 at 1) Plaintiff promptly consented to magistrate-judge

jurisdiction on January 21, 2010. (docket # 7). Before any Defendants appeared in this

Case 2:10-cv-00077-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 Surprisingly, Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Rule

41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

“Under Rule 41(a)(1), an action may voluntarily be dismissed by the plaintiff without

court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant has answered or moved for

summary judgment, or by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

appeared. Such a voluntary dismissal is presumed to be ‘without prejudice’ unless it states

otherwise . . . .” Commercial Space Management Company, Inc. v. The Boeing Company,

Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing the “two dismissal rule.”) “Because

the [notice of] dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required, [t]he effect is

to ‘leave[ ] the parties as though no action had been brought.’” Id. at 1077 (citations

omitted). 

- 2 -

action, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss,1

 indicating “Plaintiff will not be prosecuting this

matter further.” (docket # 8) Because the Motion did not indicate whether the dismissal

should be with or without prejudice, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice on April

21, 2010 as mandated by Rule 41(a)(1)(B) (“Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise,

the dismissal is without prejudice.”). (docket # 9) Judgment was entered that same day by

the Clerk of the Court. (docket # 10) (“[P]ursuant to the Court’s order dated April 21, 2010

granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, judgment is entered and this action is dismissed

without prejudice.”).

Over two months after Judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed

Motion to Modify Judgment, indicating “[t]he parties were able to resolve the dispute

through mediation prior to an Answer being filed. A term of the settlement agreement was

that Barlowe would ‘immediately dismiss with prejudice Barlowe’s claims und (sic) Lawsuit

against Company, et al. . . .and . . . file all appropriate documents with any court or other

administrative agency to effect such a dismissal with prejudice.’” (docket # 11 at 1) “This

motion is made in compliance with the settlement agreement, and made at the request of

Tina Ezzell, Esq., who represented the defendants at the mediation.” (Id. at 2) Plaintiff’s

Motion, however, cites no authority that a district court may modify a judgment from a

dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice in violation of LRCiv 7.2(b)

(“[U]pon any motion, the moving party shall serve and file with the motion’s papers a

memorandum setting forth the points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion.”)

Case 2:10-cv-00077-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 On December 1, 2009, the deadline for filing a Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion to

alter or amend a judgment was extended for 10 days to 28 days. Moody v. Finander, 2010

WL 2354586, * 1 n. 3 (S.D.Cal. 2010).

- 3 -

FEDERAL RULE 59(e)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to move to alter or amend

a judgment. Rule 59(e) provides, however, that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment

must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”2

 Rule 59(e),

Fed.R.Civ.P. (emphasis added). “There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion

may be granted: 1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon

which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously

unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is

an intervening change in controlling law.” Walsh v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009

WL 4674049, * 3 (N.D.Cal. 2009) (quoting Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338

F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). While it

does not appear that any of these grounds apply, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant

Plaintiff’s Motion because it was untimely filed. Rule 6(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., proscribes the

Court from extending the 28-day deadline for good cause or excusable neglect. Rule 6(b)(2),

Fed.R.Civ.P. (“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules . . . 59(b), (d), and (e),

and 60(b).”) (emphasis added).

FEDERAL RULE 60(b)

If Plaintiff intended to bring a motion for relief from judgment under Rule

60(b), the motion must also be denied. Under Rule 60(b), a party may move for relief from

judgment on the following grounds: “(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 . . . misrepresentation,

or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

satisfied, released or discharged . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Rule 60(b),

Case 2:10-cv-00077-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 4
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 -

Fed.R.Civ.P. “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time--and for

reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the

date of the proceeding.” Rule 60(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.

While his Motion was timely filed under any of the six grounds identified in

Rule 60(b), Plaintiff has made no showing under any of these grounds that the settlement of

the parties’ disputes via private mediation authorizes vacating a judgment. Under Rule

60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision allowing a district court to relieve a party from a final

judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,” the

Ninth Circuit very recently confirmed that “[t]o receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party

must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to

prosecute [his case].” Lal v. State of California, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 2541370, * 4 (9th

Cir. 2010). Settlement of a civil case after a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute

an extraordinary circumstance to warrant vacating a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6).

CONCLUSION

While the Court commends the parties for resolving their legal disputes

through private mediation, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s

requested relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Modify Judgment,

docket # 11, is DENIED. 

Dated this 1st day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00077-LOA Document 12 Filed 07/01/10 Page 4 of 4