Jaiyeola v. AT&T

Background

The court considered two motions by Jaiyeola under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment or order for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, or extraordinary circumstances. The first motion sought to vacate the court’s earlier order granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), denying Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, closing the case, and entering judgment. The second motion sought to vacate the order denying Jaiyeola’s motion to disqualify the judge.

Judicial Notice

Jaiyeola asked the court to take judicial notice of two orders from other cases. The court denied that request because the orders had not been introduced into evidence and the exceptions for related litigation or materials incorporated into the pleadings did not apply.

Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Order

Jaiyeola argued that the dismissal order should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(1), which concerns mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. He disagreed with the court’s conclusion that he lacked statutory standing, argued that the court improperly considered allegations from his proposed amended complaint, challenged the court’s interpretation of Ninth Circuit precedent, disputed the court’s treatment of judicial notice, and argued that the court improperly compared his operative and proposed complaints. The court rejected these arguments, explaining that disagreement with the court’s reasoning is not a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). It also stated that the court could consider allegations in the proposed complaint when deciding whether amendment would be futile.

The court also denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(4), which concerns a void judgment. Jaiyeola argued that the court violated his due-process rights by failing to interpret his filings liberally as a self-represented party. The court stated that it had provided procedural leniency and had interpreted his pleadings liberally, but that self-represented pleadings still must give a defendant notice of what it allegedly did wrong and why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court further denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief in extraordinary circumstances. Jaiyeola argued that the court acted unfairly by denying his request for judicial notice, deciding the motions without oral argument, and denying leave to amend. The court concluded that these were ordinary procedures for deciding motions to dismiss and were not extraordinary circumstances.

Motion to Vacate the Disqualification Order

Jaiyeola also sought to vacate the order denying his motion to disqualify the judge. Although he cited Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(4), the court found that he did not present arguments showing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or a void judgment. Instead, he repeated arguments from his original disqualification motion and disputed the court’s conclusions. The court denied this motion under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4).

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila denied Jaiyeola’s motions to vacate the dismissal order and the disqualification order. The case remains closed.