Greenspan v. Qazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AARON JACOB GREENSPAN, Case No. 20-cv-03426-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE RULE 60(B) MOTION v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 178 10 OMAR QAZI, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Aaron Greenspan asks for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 60(b). Dkt. No. 178; see also Dkt. No. 172 (judgment). The parties’ familiarity with 15 the record, including the Court’s several orders, is assumed. Relief from judgment is denied. 16 As the Supreme Court recently stated: 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits “a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, 18 under a limited set of circumstances.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Under 19 Rule 60(b)(1), a party may seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Rules 60(b)(2) 20 through (b)(5) supply other grounds for reopening a judgment. Finally, Rule 60(b)(6) provides a catchall for “any other reason 21 that justifies relief.” This last option is available only when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are inapplicable. See Liljeberg v. Health 22 Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863, n.11, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). Even then, “‘extraordinary 23 circumstances’” must justify reopening. Ibid. 24 Kemp v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1856 (2022).1 Greenspan appears to invoke all 6 25 provisions of Rule 60(b), but the main thrust is about “newly discovered evidence” relating to the 26 SEC allegations against the Tesla defendants, and “errors” by the Court. 27 1 Nothing in the motion warrants reconsideration of the judgment or the reasons leading up 2 || toit. Most of the motion simply rehashes Greenspan’s prior unsuccessful arguments, and 3 || emphasizes his disagreement with the Court’s findings and conclusions. These are not good 4 || grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). See Amer. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc., v. N. Amer. 5 Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). The “new evidence” Greenspan says he has 6 acquired from the SEC and other sources is essentially more of the same that was found wanting 7 in the Court’s orders of dismissal, see Dkt. No. 125 (first order) and Dkt. No. 171 (second order), 8 || and does not materially improve the pleading shortfalls in the complaints. Greenspan’s passing 9 |} comment that he was “denied” due process, Dkt. No. 178 at 12, is belied by the ECF docket, 10 || which demonstrates that he was given five opportunities over a period of two years to plausibly 11 allege a claim, and other accommodations in light of his pro se status. See Dkt. No. 171 at 2. 12 Greenspan’s effort to revisit recusal is equally unavailing. Greenspan filed a recusal 5 13 || request after the Court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. The Court denied the request 14 || on the merits, namely that an old law firm affiliation which ended many years ago, well before this 3 15 case started and the Court dismissed Greenspan’s complaint, was not a circumstance that would a 16 || cause any reasonable person to question the Court’s impartiality. See Dkt. No. 130. Greenspan’s 3 17 comment about alleged financial ties between “the Donato household” and defense counsel, Dkt. 18 No. 178 at 15, is unfounded conjecture. The Court has written extensively on the standards of 19 || recusal, see Nat’! Abortion Fed’n vy. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 20 || 2017); Sanai v. Kozinski, Case No. 19-cv-08162-YGR (JD), 2021 WL 2273982, (N.D. Cal. May 21 24, 2021), and incorporates that discussion here. No reasonable person with knowledge of all the 22 || facts would conclude that the Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned on the basis of 23 || Greenspan’s speculation. See Nat’l Abortion Fed’n, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1089 (citation omitted). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 30, 2022 26 27 28 JAMEYDPONATO- Unitedf tates District Judge