Drevaleva v. Denis Richard McDonough
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-00887
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. McDonough, Judge Gilliam denied Drevaleva’s three motions to vacate the closed case’s judgment.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s three motions to vacate were denied. The court stated that the case was closed and that no further filings would be accepted.
What happened
In Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. Denis Richard McDonough, et al., the court had previously dismissed Drevaleva’s complaint because claim preclusion barred her claims and declared her a vexatious litigant. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision.
More than a year later, Drevaleva filed three motions asking the court to vacate the earlier decision. She argued that there was no valid final judgment and identified other alleged procedural defects.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied all pending motions. He found that Drevaleva had not followed the applicable filing requirements, had not shown extraordinary circumstances, and mainly repeated arguments already rejected by the court and the Ninth Circuit. The court stated that the case was closed and that it would accept no further filings.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Denis Richard McDonough · No. 4:22-cv-00887
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 21, 2025
Background
On October 26, 2022, the court held that Drevaleva’s claims were barred by res judicata, meaning claim preclusion, and dismissed the complaint. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed that decision in a prior related proceeding.
More than a year after that decision, Drevaleva filed three motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), a provision that allows a court to provide relief from a judgment in extraordinary circumstances. Her motions broadly argued that no valid final judgment existed to trigger claim preclusion and raised other alleged procedural defects.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 60(b)(6) is an equitable remedy used sparingly to prevent manifest injustice when extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from timely correcting an erroneous judgment. A Rule 60(b) motion must also be filed within a reasonable time. In addition, Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party seeking reconsideration under Rule 60(b) to file a motion for permission that specifically addresses the required legal showing.
The court found that Drevaleva had not made the showing required by the federal and local rules. It stated that she had not complied with the procedural requirements, had not demonstrated anything close to extraordinary circumstances, and primarily repeated arguments that the court and the Ninth Circuit had already rejected.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied all pending motions, including Drevaleva’s three motions to vacate. The court reemphasized that the case was closed and ordered that no further filings be accepted in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.