Bruzzone v. McManis
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-01235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bruzzone v. McManis, Judge Hamilton denied Bruzzone’s motion to reexamine a nearly four-year-old judgment as untimely and unsupported by new facts.
Michael A. Bruzzone’s request to reexamine the 2018 judgment was denied; the opinion does not describe any separate relief granted or denied to the defendants.
What happened
In Bruzzone v. McManis, Michael A. Bruzzone asked the court to reexamine a judgment entered in 2018. The judgment had ended the case, and the court said it had been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, with review by the Supreme Court denied.
The court said Bruzzone’s request under Rules 52 and 60(b)(2) was filed too late. It also said that, even if the request had been timely, it presented no new facts that would satisfy either rule.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton vacated the scheduled hearing and denied Bruzzone’s motion. She also stated that the court would not consider motions seeking reconsideration of that order.
The detailed version
- Bruzzone v. McManis · No. 4:18-cv-01235
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
The court had entered judgment and terminated the case on October 31, 2018. On the same day, it entered an order imposing pre-filing review. The opinion states that the judgment was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit and that a petition for Supreme Court review was denied.
Michael A. Bruzzone later filed a motion for “reexamination” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and Rule 60(b)(2). The court considered the written submissions without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for September 22, 2022.
Analysis
Rule 52(a) allows a party to seek amended or additional findings and an amended judgment. The court explained that Rule 52(b) sets a deadline for such a request and concluded that the deadline had passed.
Rule 60 permits a party to seek relief from a judgment in specified circumstances. The court stated that the one-year outside deadline applies to requests based on alleged mistakes, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or misconduct. Because the judgment was nearly four years old, the court concluded that the Rule 60 deadline had also passed.
The court additionally ruled that the motion lacked any new facts that would satisfy Rules 52 or 60 even if it had been timely.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Bruzzone’s motion. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to that denial. The court also stated that it would not entertain motions for reconsideration of this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.