Moreno v. Perkins Will, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Jose Rigoberto Moreno's request to clarify an order denying his motion to reinstate previously dismissed excessive force claims. The court explained that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) or (b)(2) was untimely because it was sought more than one year after final judgment, and that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) was not justified by extraordinary circumstances. The order was dated February 26, 2025.

Holdings

1. A motion for relief from judgment based on mistake or newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(2) must be filed no more than one year after entry of the judgment, and Moreno's motion filed more than three years after judgment was legally untimely.
2. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must be sought within a reasonable time and requires extraordinary, unique, and compelling circumstances preventing timely action; Moreno did not satisfy that standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should clarify or reconsider its prior denial of Moreno's motion for relief from judgment.
2. Whether Moreno's motion under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(2) was timely when filed more than three years after entry of final judgment.
3. Whether Moreno demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and filed within a reasonable time as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Disposition

other