Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00538/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00538-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joao Cornelio
Plaintiff
Intel Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Joao Cornelio,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Intel Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-08-00538-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Joao Cornelio’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Request for 

Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case. (Doc. 59). The Court now rules on 

the motion. 

 On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Intel Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion for 

summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant. (Doc. 43, 44). Over 

three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-open the case. (Doc. 

47). In an order dated September 17, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to re-open 

because the Court had no jurisdiction to consider a motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 60 filed more than a year after entry of final judgment. (Doc. 58). 

 Plaintiff filed this motion on July 22, 2015. (Doc. 59). It is not clear, however, 

what Plaintiff’s motion requests; it is captioned as a “request of explanation/clarification 

of denial to re-open case,” but consists almost entirely of a recitation of the facts of the 

case and descriptions of newly discovered evidence. (Id.). 

 To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion requests, as its caption suggests, clarification 

Case 2:08-cv-00538-JAT Document 61 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

of the Court’s order refusing to re-open the case, the Court knows of no simpler way to 

put it that it did in that order: “[A] district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely 

motion to vacate a judgment.” (Doc. 58 at 2) (quoting Burton v. Spokane Police Dep’t, 

517 F. App’x 554, 555 (9th Cir. 2013)). 

 To the extent that the motion is another request to re-open the case, it, like the 

previous motion to re-open, is denied as untimely. Regardless of the explanations 

Plaintiff gives for failing to obtain the new evidence, pursuant to Rule 60, the Court has 

no jurisdiction to even consider a motion to re-open that is filed over six years after final 

judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Burton, 517 F. App’x at 555. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Request for 

Explanation/Certification of Denial to Re-Open Case (Doc. 59) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 27th day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:08-cv-00538-JAT Document 61 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 2