de Jesus v. UnitedHealth Group

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

UnitedHealth Group,

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

_2-