Glenn v. Trident Seafood Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01583
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 TRAVIS GLENN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-1583 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION TO REOPEN 12 v. 13 TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from a Final Judgment 17 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Dkt. No. 84). Having reviewed the Motion and 18 Defendant’s Response (Dkt. No. 85), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Travis Glenn brought this case pursuing claims against his former employer, 21 Trident Seafood Company, for racial discrimination under Washington’s Law Against 22 Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Amended Complaint § III ¶¶ 1-7 23 (Dkt. No. 25).) The Parties settled and the Court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 1 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Glenn now moves to vacate the judgment pursuant to Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging fraud on the Court. 3 ANALYSIS 4 A. Legal Standard

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 permits the Court “[o]n motion and just terms” to 6 “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. . . .” Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 60. The Court may do so “for the following reasons: 8 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect: (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 9 discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 10 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; 11 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier 12 judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 13 (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

14 Id. Glenn invokes subsection (b)(3), alleging Trident committed fraud upon the Court with 15 regards to the settlement. 16 Under Rule 60(b)(3), relief is only permitted when fraud, misrepresentation or 17 misconduct is committed by the adverse party in the litigation. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & 18 Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Fraud, 19 misrepresentation or misconduct committed by a non-party in the litigation is insufficient 20 grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3). Id. In order to prevail under Rule 21 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was 22 obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by 23 due diligence before or during the proceeding.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 24 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 B. No Basis to Set Aside Order and Judgment 2 The basis for Glenn’s motion has to do with the check he received in exchange for 3 settling his claims against Trident. According to Glenn’s declaration, he received a check in the 4 amount of $50,000 USD per the settlement agreement. The issue arises from the bank’s failure

5 “to honor the defendants [sic] check.” (Declaration of Travis Glenn ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 84-1).) Glenn 6 argues that because of this, he was never made whole from the settlement agreement, which he 7 believes acts as fraud upon the Court. 8 Trident argues that as an initial matter it investigated Glenn’s claims in an attempt to 9 assist him in resolving any issues regarding payment. (Response at 2.) Trident confirmed that 10 Glenn cashed the settlement check at a Wells Fargo bank branch in Portland, Oregon, and that 11 the settlement funds were debited from Trident’s account. (Id.) Trident argues that any issue 12 Glenn has with the funds from the settlement check are with his bank, not Trident. The Court 13 agrees. 14 Glenn has not met the requirements of Rule 60(b)(3). The Court agrees with Trident that

15 the issue of the settlement check is between Glenn and his bank, not Glenn and Trident. Glenn 16 acknowledges that he received the settlement check and does not argue that the amount was 17 incorrect. Instead, he alleges that “the bank has yet to honor the defendants [sic] check.” (Glenn 18 Decl. ¶ 3.) Glenn offers no evidence to suggest that Trident has anything to do with that issue, 19 let alone provided the clear and convincing evidence that Rule 60(b)(3) requires. Because Glenn 20 has failed to present any evidence suggesting Trident has played any role in his issue with the 21 bank, Glenn’s argument does not convince the Court that the Judgment should be set aside 22 under Rule 60. 23

24 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court has considered Glenn’s Motion and finds that it fails to meet the standard set 3 forth under Rule 60(b)(3). The Court DENIES the Motion. 4 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

5 Dated January 11, 2023. A 6 7 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24