de Jesus v. UnitedHealth Group

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Myrna de Jesus, No. CV-25-02701-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 UnitedHealth Group,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Myrna de Jesus seeks relief from the final judgment entered on August 22, 16 2025. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff argues she is not attempting to “seek relief based on previously 17 adjudicated or time-barred allegations.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) Instead plaintiff hopes to pursue 18 claims “arising from newly discovered and independently actionable slanderous 19 statements.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) Those statements allegedly were made after judgment was 20 entered in this case. (Doc. 11 at 5.) 21 The August 22, 2025, judgment was based on the statements plaintiff identified in 22 her complaint and amended complaint. (Doc. 1, 7.) A judgment should not be set aside so 23 that a plaintiff can pursue new claims that did not even exist at the time judgment was 24 entered. See Ulloa v. City of Philadelphia, 692 F. Supp. 481, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (“Cases 25 must be decided on the law and facts as they exist at the [time the decision is made] and 26 not re-decided as later events occur, except in the most unusual circumstances; judicial 27 proceedings cannot be denied finality and repetitively litigated.”). 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 11) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 15th day of September, 2025. 4 UU ia M. VBRA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-