Roshan v. Lawrence

Background

Peyman Roshan moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (b)(3). Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief based on newly discovered evidence, while Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.

The court had previously dismissed Roshan’s case on grounds of Younger abstention, a doctrine under which a federal court generally refrains from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The court had also denied Roshan’s motion for reconsideration. Roshan had filed a notice of appeal from the earlier dismissal and judgment, and that appeal remained pending before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Roshan’s Arguments

Roshan argued that alleged corruption in the State Bar prevented the court from having the full facts needed to evaluate abstention. He relied on Los Angeles Times articles published after entry of judgment, which he said showed that the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court had been corrupted by Thomas Girardi.

Roshan also alleged that Melanie J. Lawrence, whom he sued as the head of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, had witnessed and participated in the alleged corruption but took no corrective action until after the articles were published.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Roshan did not satisfy the requirements for relief based on newly discovered evidence. To qualify, the evidence must have existed when judgment was entered, could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence, and must have been significant enough that having it earlier would likely have changed the outcome.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the newspaper articles could qualify as newly discovered evidence. It nevertheless concluded that the articles would have no effect on the case’s disposition. In the court’s view, Roshan’s argument that the alleged corruption showed that review by the California Supreme Court would not adequately protect constitutional rights merely repackaged his earlier arguments against dismissal. The court explained that disagreement with its abstention ruling and repetition of previously rejected arguments are not grounds for Rule 60(b) relief, and that Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal.

The court also rejected relief under Rule 60(b)(3). Roshan had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, or that the defendants’ conduct prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case. The court found that Roshan offered no evidence supporting his conclusory allegations.

Disposition

Judge Alex. Tse denied Roshan’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) in its entirety. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.