Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02546/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02546-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 31:3731 Fraud

---

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

Michael A. H. Ihsan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mary E. Bruno, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-2546-PHX-FJM

ORDER

I.

The Court has before it defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael Lungaretti's

motion to dismiss (doc. 7) and supplement thereto (doc. 8), Total Systems Services, Inc.'s

("TSS") joinder (doc 10), Vital Processing Services, LLC's ("VPS") joinder (doc. 11), VISA

USA, Inc.'s ("VISA") joinder (doc. 12), plaintiff's response (doc. 9), and defendant Mary

Bruno's and defendant Michael Lungaretti's reply (doc. 13). The Court also has before it

plaintiff's Motion to Strike (doc. 15), and defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael

Lungaretti's response (doc. 14). The Court also has before it plaintiff's motion to discover

supportive evidence (doc. 16), and defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael

Lungaretti's response (doc. 25). The Court also has before it plaintiff's motions for Fed. R.

Civ. P. 7.1(a) disclosure statements from VPS (doc. 17) and TSS (doc. 18), and defendant

Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael Lungaretti's response (doc. 24). The court also has

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 6
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 -

before it plaintiff's motion for joinder of VISA and TSS d/b/a VPS pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 20 (doc. 26), plaintiff's motion for joinder of VISA pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (doc.

27), plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to name TSS as a party (doc. 28), plaintiff's

motion to amend the complaint to name VPS as a party (doc. 29), plaintiff's motion to amend

the complaint to name VISA as a party (doc. 30), defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant

Michael Lungaretti's response to these motions (doc. 31), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 34). The

court also has before it defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael Lungaretti's request

for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (doc. 32), plaintiff's response (doc. 33), and defendant

Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael Lungaretti's reply (doc. 35).

II.

On August 31, 1999, plaintiff filed an action against VISA, TSS, VPS, Victoria

Strayer and Juan Medina for relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Motion to Dismiss at 2. The court dismissed defendants Strayer and Medina on

December 9, 1999, Motion to Dismiss at 2, and dismissed defendant VISA and granted

summary judgment for defendants TSS and VPS in an order entered February 25, 2003,

Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 5 (Order) at 21. The clerk entered judgment for defendants

on February 26, 2003. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 6 (Judgment). The judgment was

affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 26, 2004. Motion to

Dismiss, Exhibit 12 (Memorandum). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for a

writ of certiorari on June 28, 2004. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 14 (Letter from the Office

of the Clerk).

Plaintiff now seeks relief from the order entered on February 25, 2003 and the 

judgment entered on February 26, 2003 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), which

provides in relevant part that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may

relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding

for . . . fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party." The

motion must be made within one year of the judgment or order at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). This limitations period is not tolled during an appeal. Nevitt v. United States, 886

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 6
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

 The drafters of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 clearly intended that a motion for relief pursuant

to subsection (b)(3) be brought in the action in which the judgment was rendered. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60, advisory committee's note of 1946. However, we need not consider this matter

because the motion is time-barred, and because we also consider plaintiff's complaint as an

independent action unrestricted by Rule 60.

2

 We need not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment to

consider the court records of related proceedings. Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989, 994,

n.2 (9th Cir. 2005).

- 3 -

F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989). The limitations period expired on February 26, 2004. 

Plaintiff filed this action on August 25, 2005. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for relief

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) is time-barred.1

III.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) "does not limit the power of the court to entertain an

independent action to relieve a party from a judgment [or] order, . . . or to set aside a

judgment for fraud upon the court." The Rule 60(b)(3) limitations period does not apply

to an independent action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. A pro se litigant such as Ihsan is

"entitled to great leeway when the court construes his pleadings." Brazil v. United States

Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we consider plaintiff's

complaint as an independent action unrestricted by Rule 60(b).

A.

Plaintiff's briefings, while extremely difficult to understand, appear to allege that 

Chief Judge McNamee, who presided over the underlying action, was biased in favor of

defendants, and accordingly fraudulently colluded with defendants to wrongly interpret

the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k), thereby causing plaintiff's service of process

to be declared invalid and the case against VISA dismissed. Response to Motion to

Dismiss at 5, 7. Plaintiff appealed the underlying judgment based upon these allegations. 

Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 7 (Notice of Appeal) at 4-5; Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 8

(Appellant's Opening Brief) at 2, 4; Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 10 (Appellee's Response

Brief) at 29-31.2 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 6
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 -

ground that appellant did "not point to any evidence in the record of judicial bias." 

Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 12 (Memorandum) at 2.

Defendant argues that plaintiff is estopped from relitigating this matter. Motion to

Dismiss at 13-15. "To foreclose relitigation of an issue under collateral estoppel: (1) the

issue at stake must be identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must

have been actually litigated in the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the issue in

the prior litigation must have been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in the

earlier action." Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Here, the judicial bias issue was litigated by plaintiff before the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, and the finding that there was no judicial bias was critical to the decision to

affirm the judgment of the district court. Plaintiff is therefore estopped from relitigating

this issue.

B.

Plaintiff also appears to allege an independent claim that defendants Bruno and

Lungaretti fraudulently misstated the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(k) to the court. 

Essentially, plaintiff attempts to relitigate the Rule 4.1(k) issue by describing defendants'

legal arguments as "fraudulent" arguments: "[Defendants'] claim is verbally stating that a

'named officer or partner or manager or authorizes agent must be named to receive the

summons and complaint on the behalf of Visa, U.S.A.' and to quote the defendant Mr.

Lungaretti, the Az.Rule makes it 'Requisite Specific to name that person' This is the

Fraud [sic] . . . ." Response to Motion to Dismiss at 5.

Parties litigated the meaning of Rule 4.1(k) before the district court, and the court

rendered final judgment against plaintiff on that issue. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 3

(Defendant VISA U.S.A. Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Application for

Entry of Default and Default Judgment) at 3-4; Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 4

(Memorandum of Decision and Order) at 5; Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 5 (Order) at 5-6. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is estopped from relitigating this issue. Plaintiff cannot evade the

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

doctrine of collateral estoppel by characterizing a legal argument as a fraudulent

argument.

IV.

To the extent that plaintiff filed this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),

plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the action is timebarred. To the extent that plaintiff filed this independent action to relieve plaintiff from

the adverse order and judgment, or as an independent action to set aside the judgment for

fraud on the court, plaintiff's claim is barred by collateral estoppel.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant Mary Bruno's and defendant Michael

Lungaretti's motion to dismiss (doc. 7) to which Total Systems Services, Inc., Vital

Processing Services, LLC, and VISA USA, Inc., joined (docs. 10, 11, 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's Motion to Strike,

which repeats the arguments of the response to the motion to dismiss (doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion to discover

supportive evidence (doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion for a Fed.

R. Civ. P. 7.1(a) disclosure statement from Vital Processing Services, LLC (doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion for a Fed.

R. Civ. P. 7.1(a) disclosure statement from Total System Services, Inc. (doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion for joinder

of VISA USA, Inc. and Total Systems Services, Inc. d/b/a Vital Processing Services, LLC

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (doc. 26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion for joinder

of VISA USA, Inc. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (doc. 27).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion to amend

the complaint to name Total System Services, Inc. as a party (doc. 28).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion to amend

the complaint to name Vital Processing Services, LLC as a party (doc. 29).

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 6
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiff's motion to amend

the complaint to name VISA USA, Inc. as a party (doc. 30).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot defendant Mary Bruno's and

defendant Michael Lungaretti's request for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (doc. 32).

All claims having been dismissed, the clerk is requested to enter judgment in

defendants' favor.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02546-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 6 of 6