Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-08094
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Judge Freeman denied Lenk’s request to reopen the judgment because he showed neither qualifying mistake nor new evidence.
Kenneth Lawrence Lenk’s request to reopen the judgment was denied; the existing judgment against him remained in place.
What happened
Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. concerned Kenneth Lawrence Lenk’s request to reopen a judgment dismissing his lawsuit against his former employer. The court had dismissed the case with prejudice, and Lenk filed the request after his appeal of that judgment was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Lenk relied on rules allowing relief for mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. He largely repeated arguments and evidence the court had already considered, and he also presented information about events occurring after the case was dismissed. The court concluded that these grounds did not justify reopening the judgment.
Judge Freeman ruled that the district court had authority to decide the request because the appeal had ended and the appeals court’s mandate had returned jurisdiction to the district court. The court denied Lenk’s request for relief from judgment and terminated the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-08094
- Beth Freeman
- May 24, 2022
Background
Kenneth Lawrence Lenk, representing himself, filed a fourth lawsuit against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. The opinion states that Lenk’s lawsuits asserted discrimination, constructive discharge, and related claims. The court had dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court later denied Lenk’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). The Ninth Circuit dismissed Lenk’s appeal of the judgment for failure to prosecute. An appeal concerning an award of prevailing-party attorneys’ fees to MPS remained pending.
Lenk filed the current motion on May 18, 2022, seeking relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(2). Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
Jurisdiction
The court first concluded that it had authority to decide the motion. Because the appeal of the judgment had been dismissed and the Ninth Circuit’s mandate became effective on April 29, 2022, jurisdiction over the case had returned to the district court before Lenk filed the Rule 60(b) motion. The court also found that the motion was filed within the one-year period allowed by Rule 60(c).
Merits of the motion
The court found that Lenk had not shown a basis for relief under either Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(2). His Rule 60(b)(1) argument was essentially that the court had made errors when it dismissed the case and denied his Rule 59(e) motion. The court characterized the motion as repeating arguments that had already been considered and rejected.
For Rule 60(b)(2), Lenk again presented facts and evidence from his earlier motion. The court held that resubmitting previously considered evidence and arguments did not support relief. It also held that evidence about events occurring after the dismissal was outside the pleadings and did not provide a basis for reopening the judgment.
Disposition
The court DENIED Lenk’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The order also terminated docket entry 56.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.