Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-05866
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Judge Gilliam denied Davis’s request to reopen the closed case after summary judgment and appellate affirmance.
Gloria Jeanette Davis’s request to reopen her closed case was denied; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals remains the prevailing defendant under the earlier judgment.
What happened
In Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Gloria Jeanette Davis asked the court to reopen her case and requested a trial or oral argument. The court treated her filings as a request to set aside the judgment under Rule 60(b).
The detailed version
- Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · No. 4:19-cv-05866
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
On February 2, 2022, the court granted summary judgment for Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and entered judgment against Gloria Jeanette Davis. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on August 17, 2023. Davis later filed documents asking the court to reopen the case and requesting a trial or oral argument.
Rule 60(b) request
The court treated Davis’s filings as a motion to vacate, or set aside, the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud by the opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief.
The court concluded that Davis’s filings did not satisfy any of those grounds. It said she essentially disagreed with the court’s summary-judgment decision but had not shown mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, that the judgment was void, or that the judgment had been satisfied. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had considered and affirmed the summary-judgment ruling.
Ruling
Judge HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. denied Davis’s request to reopen the action. The court stated that the case remains closed and directed the Clerk not to accept further filings in it. The court also stated that any additional materials sent by mail would be returned without review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.