Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00538/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00538-2/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 pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-open Case (Doc. 47), 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence in Support of Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 51), Plaintiff’s Motion on Progress to Re-open Case (Doc. 53), and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Introduce Evidence (Doc. 54). The Court denies the parties’ motions 

for the following reasons. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On July 10, 2009, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

and entered judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. (Docs. 43 & 44). Over 

three years later, on October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to re-open the 

case (Doc. 47). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to re-open (Doc. 48) and 

Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 49). In addition, Plaintiff filed a supplement in support of his 

motion to re-open (Doc. 50). In response, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

supplement (Doc. 51). Plaintiff then filed a subsequent response to Defendant’s motion to 

strike (Doc. 52). 

Case 2:08-cv-00538-JAT Document 58 Filed 09/17/13 Page 1 of 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 

- 2 -

 In March 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a status update on his motion to re-open 

the case (Doc. 53). Plaintiff then filed a motion to introduce evidence in support of his 

motion to re-open the case (Doc. 54). Accordingly, Defendant filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to introduce evidence (Doc. 55) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 56). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Plaintiff requests that the Court re-open this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60 because Plaintiff has recently discovered new evidence. (Doc. 47 at 1). 

Rule 60 allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order. Subsection b provides six 

specific reasons for a party to move for relief under. While Plaintiff does not specify 

which subsection of Rule 60 he is moving under, the only applicable section is Rule 

60(b)(2). 

 Rule 60(b)(2) provides for relief when there is “newly discovered evidence that, 

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b).” Under Rule 60(c)(1), “[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 judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” (emphasis added). 

 Plaintiff filed his motion to re-open the case over three years after the entry of 

judgment in this case. Plaintiff has offered no other reason for Court to re-open this case 

than newly discovered evidence. “[A] district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an 

untimely motion to vacate a judgment.” Burton v. Spokane Police Dep’t, 517 F. App’x 

554, 555 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 

1989)). 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

to consider it and the Court will deny the motion. Because the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 

motion the remaining pending motions will also be denied as they are moot. 

III. CONCLUSION 

// 

// 

Case 2:08-cv-00538-JAT Document 58 Filed 09/17/13 Page 2 of 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 

- 3 -

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open the Case (Doc. 47) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

Supplement (Doc. 51) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 53) is 

denied as moot. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Introduce Evidence (Doc. 

54) is denied. 

 Dated this 17th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:08-cv-00538-JAT Document 58 Filed 09/17/13 Page 3 of 3