Zayas v. San Mateo Medical Center
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-01518
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Antonio Zayas v. San Mateo Medical Center, Judge Gilliam denied reconsideration of the complaint’s dismissal as untimely.
The Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration were denied, so the prior dismissal of their complaint as untimely remained in place.
What happened
In Antonio Zayas, et al. v. San Mateo Medical Center, Plaintiffs alleged that their child was kidnapped at San Mateo Medical Center in 2017. The Court had dismissed the lawsuit as untimely because it was filed outside the two-year limitations period governing the claims.
Plaintiffs asked the Court to reconsider, appearing to argue that they had previously filed claims before Judge Donato but had not been heard. The Court treated the filings as requests under rules allowing a judgment to be changed or set aside only in limited circumstances, such as clear error, newly discovered evidence, or extraordinary reasons.
The Court concluded that Plaintiffs had not met those standards and had already raised their arguments in earlier objections. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied both motions for reconsideration, leaving the dismissal in place.
The detailed version
- Zayas v. San Mateo Medical Center · No. 4:24-cv-01518
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in March 2024, alleging that their child was kidnapped at San Mateo Medical Center in 2017. Judge Ryu recommended dismissing the complaint as untimely because it was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations governing Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint as untimely.
Motions for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration at Docket Nos. 31 and 33. Docket No. 33 was a refiled version of Docket No. 31 and presented no unique argument. Plaintiffs appeared to argue that they had filed claims with Judge Donato earlier but had never been heard, and they asked for an opportunity to be heard.
Because Plaintiffs did not identify a specific procedural basis, the Court treated the motions as requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, and Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances. The Court explained that Rule 59(e) relief is limited to circumstances including newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) covers circumstances including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision, is available only in extraordinary circumstances preventing a party from timely correcting an erroneous judgment.
Court’s Ruling
The Court found that Plaintiffs had not made the showing required under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The Court understood Plaintiffs to be referring to a case they had filed with Judge Donato in 2022, which had been promptly dismissed. It concluded that the filings in that earlier case, filed five years after the events at issue, did not explain how the claims in this lawsuit were timely. The Court also noted that Plaintiffs had already raised these arguments in their objections, which the Court had previously considered, and that Plaintiffs provided no new information explaining why the claims were timely.
The Court DENIED Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration, Docket Nos. 31 and 33.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.