Medford, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A. and Nathan F. Smith

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Medford, LLC’s motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from the court’s prior denial of its motion for a temporary restraining order. The court held that Medford failed to identify a specific legal or factual error and did not establish the extraordinary circumstances required for reconsideration.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because it failed to identify or establish a specific error in the court's prior order.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because its claimed judicial error was addressed, if at all, under Rule 60(b)(1), making Rule 60(b)(6) unavailable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) from the prior order denying its motion for a temporary restraining order.
2. Whether Plaintiff could obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6) when its asserted basis for relief was alleged judicial error cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1).

Disposition

other