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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZATREA EVANS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES,

LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-08-4993 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

(1) TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT;

(2) FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT;

AND (3) FOR OTHER RELIEF

Before the Court is plaintiff’s combined (1) “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment”;

(2) “Motion for Relief from Judgment”; and (3) “Request for any and all other Relief

Necessary,” filed February 3, 2010. Joint oppositions have been filed, respectively, by

defendants AlliedBarton Security Services, LLP and Kelly Murcray (collectively,

“AlliedBarton/Murcray”) and defendants Bayer HealthCare LLC and Christopher Loo

(collectively, “Bayer/Loo”), to which oppositions plaintiff has filed a single reply. Having

read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the

Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for March 12, 2010, and rules as follows.

In her motion, which cites to no statute or rule upon which it is based, plaintiff argues

she is entitled to relief from the Court’s January 5, 2010 judgment on the asserted grounds

that defendants have committed a “fraud on the Court” and the Court has “displayed a

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 125 Filed 03/10/10 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

deep-seated favoritism toward the [d]efendants [and] antagonism toward the [p]laintiff.” 

(See Mot. at 5:23-6:14.) As discussed below, if the motion is made under Rule 59 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion is untimely and, in any event, without merit; if

the motion is made under Rule 60(b), the motion, although timely, likewise is without merit. 

First, plaintiff’s assertion of fraud is not supported by the record. (See Compl. ¶ 60;

see also AlliedBarton’s Resp. Ex. A at 273:14-24, Ex. C.) Second, even if plaintiff had

made a sufficient showing as to the fraud asserted, her motion would fail, as the asserted

fraud admittedly was known to plaintiff during the course of the proceedings. (See Mot. at

4:25-26) (stating “[p]laintiff informed the Court of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme in an

extensive Motion and accompanying Order she filed on July 27, 2009”)); Zimmerman v.

City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding Rule 59 requires showing of

“newly discovered evidence”); Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir.

2004) (holding Rule 60(b)(3), “require[s] that fraud . . . not be discoverable by due diligence

before or during the proceedings”) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (alterations in

original). Lastly, as set forth in the Court’s concurrently filed order denying plaintiff’s Motion

to Disqualify and/or Recuse, plaintiff has made no showing of bias on the part of the Court. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04993-MMC Document 125 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2