Vieira v. County of Sacramento
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:18-cv-05431
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Vieira v. County of Sacramento, Judge Chhabria denied Vieira’s new-trial motion because it was filed one day late.
The ruling directly affected Nicholas K. Vieira’s motion for a new trial. The defendants are identified in the caption as the County of Sacramento and other defendants.
What happened
Nicholas K. Vieira sued the County of Sacramento and other defendants. After a jury trial, the court entered final judgment on March 4, 2020. Vieira then filed a motion for a new trial on April 2, 2020.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 required the motion to be filed within 28 days after judgment. Because Vieira filed it 29 days after judgment, the court determined that the motion was late. The rules did not allow the court to extend the deadline, even for a good reason.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied Vieira’s motion for a new trial as untimely. The order did not alter the final judgment entered after the jury trial.
The detailed version
- Vieira v. County of Sacramento · No. 3:18-cv-05431
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
The case proceeded to a jury trial, after which the court entered final judgment on March 4, 2020. Nicholas K. Vieira filed a motion for a new trial on April 2, 2020.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) requires a new-trial motion to be filed no later than 28 days after judgment. Vieira filed his motion 29 days after judgment. The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) prevented it from extending the deadline, including for good cause. The court also stated that the rules left no room for equitable tolling, which is a limited doctrine that can sometimes excuse a missed deadline.
Ruling
Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion for a new trial as untimely. The order did not change the final judgment. The opinion’s footnote discusses a deadline-related filing by “Zalec,” although the captioned plaintiff is Vieira; the order’s stated disposition is nonetheless clear.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.