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 second motion to vacate and barred further filings without court permission.
The order directly affected plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva by denying permission to file another motion to vacate and barring additional filings absent further order.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. Ng, the plaintiff asked for permission to file a second motion to vacate the judgment. She argued that the California Attorney General had not been served or appeared for two state agencies, and that the court had not identified which claims against those agencies were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The court applied the standards for changing or setting aside a judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). It found that the proposed motion did not present new evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, or another recognized basis for relief. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that a deputy attorney general’s appearance for one agency was fraudulent.
Judge Chen denied the pre-filing application and barred the plaintiff from making additional filings in the case unless the court later ordered otherwise. The order disposed of Docket No. 56.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Ng · No. 3:22-cv-01984
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, the plaintiff, sought permission to file a second motion to vacate the judgment in the case. She primarily argued that the California Attorney General was not served and did not appear on behalf of the Department of Industrial Relations and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. She also argued that the court had not specified which causes of action against those agencies were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Legal standards
The court described the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits altering or amending a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. It also described Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for reasons including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction or discharge of the judgment, or extraordinary circumstances.
Analysis and ruling
The court concluded that the proposed motion would not meet either rule’s standard. It found no new evidence, no clear error, and no intervening change in controlling law. The court also rejected the argument that the deputy attorney general’s appearance on behalf of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement was fraudulent.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the plaintiff’s pre-filing application to file the second motion to vacate. The court also barred the plaintiff from making any additional filings in the suit absent further order. The order disposed of Docket No. 56.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.