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 Rule 60 motion to vacate the over-five-year-old judgment as untimely.
Michael A. Bruzzone’s attempt to vacate the 2018 judgment was rejected; the opinion does not describe any change to the defendants’ position.
What happened
In Bruzzone v. McManis, the court had entered judgment and closed the case on October 31, 2018. The judgment was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Michael A. Bruzzone previously filed a motion seeking reexamination under Rules 52 and 60(b)(2), but the court denied it as untimely and lacking new facts. He later filed this motion to vacate under Rule 60.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion. The court said it was untimely and that, even if timely, it did not present new facts meeting Rule 60’s requirements.
The detailed version
- Bruzzone v. McManis · No. 4:18-cv-01235
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 15, 2023
Background
The court entered judgment and terminated the case on October 31, 2018. On the same date, it imposed pre-filing review. The opinion states that the judgment was more than five years old, had been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, and was not accepted for review by the Supreme Court.
In August 2022, Michael A. Bruzzone filed a motion for “reexamination” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 60(b)(2). The court denied that motion because it was untimely and because it did not present new facts that satisfied either rule.
Motion to Vacate
Bruzzone then filed a motion to vacate under Rule 60. The court explained that Rule 60(c)(1) generally requires a motion based on alleged mistakes, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or misconduct to be filed within one year after the judgment.
The court found that Bruzzone’s motion was untimely. It also stated that, even if the motion had been filed on time, it did not contain new facts meeting Rule 60’s requirements.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Bruzzone’s motion to vacate. The order did not alter the 2018 judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.