Drevaleva v. Ng
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-01984
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. Ng, Judge Chen denied Drevaleva’s application to file a motion seeking to undo the judgment because her error was immaterial and not newly discovered.
Plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s request to file a motion seeking to undo the judgment was denied. The opinion does not describe any separate effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. Ng, Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva asked for permission to file her first motion seeking to undo the judgment. She said she had incorrectly claimed that the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement had been served with certain documents.
The court explained that a request to change or undo a judgment must satisfy standards requiring a significant error, newly discovered evidence, or another recognized reason. It found that Drevaleva’s error was not important to the court’s ruling and was not newly discovered evidence.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Drevaleva’s application to file the proposed motion and stated that the order resolved docket entry 52.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Ng · No. 3:22-cv-01984
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva sought permission to file her first motion to vacate, or undo, the judgment in the case. She primarily argued that she had “erroneously asserted” that the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement had been served with a summons and with her original complaint in an earlier case.
Legal standards
The court discussed two rules that can permit a judgment to be changed or undone. Rule 59(e) allows a judgment to be altered when there is newly discovered evidence, a clear error or manifest injustice, or a later change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) allows relief based on mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud; a void judgment; a satisfied or discharged judgment; or extraordinary circumstances.
Ruling
The court concluded that Drevaleva’s proposed motion would not satisfy either rule. It specifically found that her error was not material to the court’s ruling and was not newly discovered evidence. Judge Edward M. Chen therefore denied the pre-filing application to file the motion. The order stated that it disposed of docket entry 52.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.