Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Case No. 22-cv-01585-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. PRE-FILING APPLICATIONS

10 ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Docket Nos. 66-69 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 After the Court declared Plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva a vexatious litigant and entered 15 judgment against her on July 7, 2022, Plaintiff has filed pre-filing applications for the following 16 motions: (1) motion to vacate judgment as to Defendant Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) 17 (Docket No. 67)1, (2) motion to vacate judgment as to Defendant Alameda Health System (AHS) 18 (Docket No. 68), and (3) second motion to vacate judgment as to AHS (Docket No. 69). Plaintiff 19 seeks to file all three underlying motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) and 20 60(b). 21 “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the district court is 22 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 23 initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 24 law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). “Rule 60(b) provides 25 for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 26

27 1 Plaintiff inadvertently filed the underlying motion (Docket No. 66) before the pre-filing 1 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) 2 extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 3 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 Plaintiff’s proposed motions would not meet the standard under either Rule. Specifically, 5 Plaintiff re-argues that this Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the Division of Labor 6 Standards Enforcement’s (DLSE) motion to dismiss on behalf of the DIR, and that this Court did 7 not have jurisdiction to consider AHS’s motion to dismiss because she has not properly served 8 AHS. The Court has addressed both arguments in its order to dismiss (Docket No. 62) (“Order”). 9 Plaintiff also seeks to plead more facts to support her Fair Labor Standards Act claim. But as the 10 Court explained in the Order, res judicata would render any amendment futile. Plaintiff’s pre- 11 filing applications are hereby DENIED. 12 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 66-69. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: July 19, 2022 17 18 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27