Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 seeking relief from an earlier judgment dismissing her case. The earlier dismissal was based on failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She also filed three supplemental briefs supporting that motion, followed by a reply.

The court had previously noted that Drevaleva had not shown why supplemental briefing was necessary. She then filed a letter explaining why she believed the local rules allowed her to file the three briefs without first obtaining permission.

Analysis

The court rejected Drevaleva’s interpretation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(c). Reading that rule together with the other local rules, the court explained that motion briefing generally consists of an opening brief, an opposition, and a reply. After a reply is filed, additional memoranda, papers, or letters require prior court approval.

The court also explained that the word “supplemental” in the rule was confusing. Although Drevaleva was mistaken, the court found that her mistake was reasonable and made in good-faith reliance on the rules.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup granted retroactive leave for Drevaleva to file her three supplemental briefs. Because she had submitted 90 pages of supplemental briefing, the court allowed the Secretary to file a 10-page supplemental opposition by January 9, 2020, at noon.

The court stated that future requests for supplemental briefing must be made before filing and must show good cause. It also described the standard page limits and briefing sequence for motions.