Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02502/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02502-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of South Lake Tahoe
Defendant
City of South Lake Tahoe Retirees Association
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 

RETIREES ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, 

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-02502-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

On May 18, 2016, the court held a hearing on defendant City of South Lake 

Tahoe’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8. There was no appearance by plaintiff City of South Lake 

Tahoe Retirees Association. After the court discussed the case with defendant, the court took the 

matter under submission. Later that day, plaintiff filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 

motion for relief from mistake, requesting a hearing to provide oral argument on defendant’s 

motion and stating that it did not appear at the hearing because its cloud-based calendaring system 

and its network platform calendaring system had a synchronization error. ECF No. 21 at 2.

Plaintiff also argues the fact that the hearing had been vacated and reset twice, the first time at the 

parties' request and a second time by the court, caused additional confusion. Id.

The court finds a Rule 60 motion to be inapplicable here as a mere hearing on 

defendant’s motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, order or proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Case 2:15-cv-02502-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED. An order to show cause as to why plaintiff did not appear at 

the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss will not be issued, as the court had previously 

contemplated. The court confirms that the matter is submitted, and a written order will follow. 

This order RESOLVES ECF No. 21, and the hearing set on June 17, 2016 for plaintiff’s Rule 60 

motion is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-02502-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2