UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 22-cv-61704-MIDDLEBROOKS 

NADEJDA JASTRJEMBSKAIA and 

AURORA CRUSIES AND TRAVEL, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

INCRUISES, LLC, and INGROUP 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

Defendants. 

I ----------------

O RD ER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED PRO SE 

AND FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(b)(6) 

THIS CAUSE is before this Court upon Plaintiff Nadejda Jastrjembskaia's motion to 

Proceed Pro Se and for relief from my Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional 

Discovery and Closing the Case (DE 62), filed on May 1, 2024. (DE 79). Defendants have not yet 

responded. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. 

Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on September 9, 2022, against Defendants for alleged 

defamation and other state-law claims. (DE 1). On December 22, 2022, Defendants moved to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (DE 35). I granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed 

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice. (DE 54). On March 28, 2023, I ordered 

Plaintiffs to show cause as to why this case should not be closed. (DE 55). On March 30, 2023, 

Plaintiffs filed a Motion and supporting memorandum, requesting that the Court grant them leave 

to file a Second Amended Complaint. (DE 56). I denied this Motion for three reasons: first, that 

Plaintiffs had failed to comply with local rules and file a proposed second amended complaint; 

second, that Plaintiffs had not provided any facts to show they planned to establish personal 

Case 0:22-cv-61704-DMM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2024 Page 1 of 3
jurisdiction; and third, Plaintiffs' allegation in the alternative that Mr. Hutchinson was a Florida 

resident and subject to general personal jurisdiction would defeat complete diversity and call into 

question this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (DE 62). On November 6, 2023, PlaintiffNadejda 

Jastrjembskaia filed a "Motion for Leave to Proceed Pro Se and For Relief from Order." (DE 68). 

Plaintiff made arguments for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b )( 1 ), 60(b )(2), and 

60(b)(3). I analyzed Plaintiffs arguments and found that they were without merit. Accordingly, I 

denied that Motion. (DE 72). 

Now Plaintiff Jastrjembskaia requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil procedure 60(b) permits "a party to seek relief from a final 

judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances." Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch all provision that allows a court to 

relieve a party from a final judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief." A movant seeking 

relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is required to show "'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the 

opening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) ( quoting Ackermann 

v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). Plaintiff argues that relief is warranted due to the posts 

and publicity about the lawsuit that she claims are still being perpetuated by Defendants against 

her on social media, Which are affecting her health and well-being. 

2 

Case 0:22-cv-61704-DMM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2024 Page 2 of 3
I have considered Plaintiff Jastrjembskaia's motion and the record in this matter, and I do 

not find that Plaintiff has made the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances required for 

relief under this rule. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND AD.TTJGED that Plaintiff 

Nadejda Jastrjembskaia's Motion Requesting Relief from Final Judgment Under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6) (DE 79) is DENIED. 

SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm beach, Florida this 

D ALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3 

Case 0:22-cv-61704-DMM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2024 Page 3 of 3