Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Lupe Rose’s motions seeking relief from the final judgment, dismissal of the proceedings, and related relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The court held that the motions were untimely under Rule 60(b)(1)–(3), and that Rose failed to establish extraordinary circumstances, newly discovered evidence, fraud, mistake, or excusable neglect. The court also concluded that SEC v. Jarkesy did not warrant relief because Rose had waived her jury-trial and appellate rights in a bifurcated consent agreement.

Holdings

1. A motion seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) must be filed no more than one year after entry of the challenged judgment; Rose's motions, filed more than one year after final judgment, were untimely.
2. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) was unavailable because Rose did not establish extraordinary circumstances that prevented her from taking timely action, and the asserted grounds were also covered by Rule 60(b)(1)-(3).
3. Rule 60(b)(1) does not provide relief to a party who deliberately entered an agreement but later misunderstood or regretted its legal consequences.
4. Rose was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) or (b)(3) because the evidence was cumulative or previously available, and she failed to prove fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by clear and convincing evidence that prevented a full and fair defense.
5. SEC v. Jarkesy did not justify Rule 60(b)(6) relief because Rose's case ended in federal district court through a consent agreement in which she waived her jury-trial and appellate rights, whereas Jarkesy concerned the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in an SEC administrative proceeding seeking civil penalties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rose's motions for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) were timely.
2. Whether Rose established extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
3. Whether Rose demonstrated mistake or excusable neglect sufficient for relief from her deliberate execution of the bifurcated consent agreement.
4. Whether Rose presented newly discovered evidence sufficient to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(2).
5. Whether Rose established fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by clear and convincing evidence under Rule 60(b)(3), or whether SEC v. Jarkesy warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Disposition

other