Doe v. Sequoia Capital

Background

Amber Doe filed this action without a lawyer. On August 1, 2023, the court ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Three days later, before the Clerk’s Office electronically transferred the action, Doe filed an opposition and an amended opposition to the transfer order. The court liberally construed those filings as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a court order for listed reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered Doe’s arguments under the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b) and concluded that she had not shown that any of them applied. The court therefore denied the motion under those grounds.

The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), a provision allowing relief for another reason that justifies it. The court explained that this provision requires a showing of both a timely motion and extraordinary circumstances. It concluded that Doe had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Ruling and Effect

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Doe’s opposition and amended opposition as construed under Rule 60(b). The action was closed, and the court stated that any relief Doe sought must be filed in the Southern District of California, the transferee court.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.