Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-01585
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System, Judge Chen denied Drevaleva’s applications to file motions seeking to vacate the judgment.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s applications were denied. The applications concerned proposed motions involving the Department of Industrial Relations and Alameda Health System.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System, the court had previously designated Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva as a vexatious litigant and entered judgment against her. She then sought permission to file three motions challenging that judgment as to the Department of Industrial Relations and Alameda Health System.
Drevaleva relied on rules allowing a court to change or provide relief from a judgment. She repeated arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Department of Industrial Relations’ dismissal motion and Alameda Health System’s dismissal motion, and she sought to add facts supporting her Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
The court said those arguments had already been addressed and that adding more facts would be futile because claim preclusion would bar the amendment. Judge Chen denied the pre-filing applications and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 66 through 69.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System · No. 3:22-cv-01585
- Edward Chen
- July 19, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had declared Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva a vexatious litigant and entered judgment against her on July 7, 2022. Drevaleva then filed pre-filing applications seeking permission to submit three motions: a motion to vacate the judgment as to the Department of Industrial Relations, a motion to vacate the judgment as to Alameda Health System, and a second motion to vacate the judgment as to Alameda Health System. The proposed motions invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The opinion notes that one underlying motion was filed before the required pre-filing application.
Standards and analysis
The court explained that Rule 59(e) permits changing or correcting a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust initial decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment for reasons including mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud; a void judgment; satisfaction or discharge of the judgment; or extraordinary circumstances.
The court concluded that Drevaleva’s proposed motions would not satisfy either rule. She reargued that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s motion to dismiss on behalf of the Department of Industrial Relations. She also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Alameda Health System’s motion to dismiss because she had not properly served that defendant. The court said it had already addressed both arguments in its earlier dismissal order. Drevaleva also sought to plead additional facts supporting a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the court stated that claim preclusion would make amendment futile.
Disposition
The court denied Drevaleva’s pre-filing applications. The order stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 66 through 69. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on July 19, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.