ORDER ON RULE 60 MOTION - 1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LNV CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-01836 RJB 

ORDER ON RULE 60 MOTION 

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant’s “Rule 60 Motion Relief from 

Judgment or Order Order is Void 60 (b)(4) Fraud upon the Court 60 (b)(3) New Evidence 60 

(b)(2).” Dkt. 134. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the 

remainder of the file. 

FACTS

This judicial foreclosure case was filed in November of 2014. Dkt. 1. On October 16, 

2015, summary judgment was granted in Plaintiff’s favor and a judgment was entered against 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-RJB Document 139 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 3
ORDER ON RULE 60 MOTION - 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

Defendant on November 4, 2015. Dkts. 111 and 116. Defendant appealed the decision to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. 119. 

On October 6, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum Opinion, 

affirming the district court’s decision and judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. LNV Corporation v. 

Subramaniam, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 15-35963, Dkt. 78. The mandate has 

not issued. 

On October 19, 2017, Defendant filed the instant motion in this case. Dkt. 134. 

Defendant moves the Court for an order vacating the October 16, 2015 order granting Plaintiff’s 

motion summary judgment (Dkt. 111) and the November 4, 2015 judgment (Dkt. 116), both of 

which were the subject of the appeal. Id. 

Defendant moved for, and on October 26, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

granted, an extension of 14 days, from the date of the order, for Defendant to file a petition for a 

rehearing. LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 15-

35963, Dkt. 81. 

This case was assigned to the undersigned on October 26, 2017. Dkt. 136. 

DISCUSSION 

Once a notice of appeal is filed from a final judgment, the district court is divested of 

jurisdiction. Laurino v. Syringa General Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2002); Griggs v. 

Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58- 59 (1982). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 (a)(2), 

“if a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal 

that has been docketed and is pending, the court may . . . deny the motion.” 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-RJB Document 139 Filed 10/31/17 Page 2 of 3
ORDER ON RULE 60 MOTION - 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

 Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 134) should be denied without prejudice. This case is on 

appeal with the Ninth Circuit. No mandate has issued. This Court is divested of jurisdiction to 

consider the motion. 

ORDER 

 It is ORDERED that: 

 Defendant’s “Rule 60 Motion Relief from Judgment or Order Order is Void 60 (b)(4) 

Fraud upon the Court 60 (b)(3) New Evidence 60 (b)(2)” (Dkt. 134) IS DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 

to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

Dated this 31st day of October, 2017. 

 A ROBERT J. BRYAN

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-RJB Document 139 Filed 10/31/17 Page 3 of 3