Isaacson v. Fudge

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KAREN M. ISAACSON, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-000351-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary of HUD; 11 JULIA R. GORDON, Assistant Secretary of HUD and Federal Housing Administration 12 Commissioner; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 13 URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

14 Defendants. 15

16 Before the court is self-represented Plaintiff Karen M. Isaacson’s motion for relief from 17 the Court’s order dismissing this matter (Dkt. # 24). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Dkt. # 21. 18 Having reviewed the motion, pertinent portions of the record, and the governing law, the Court 19 DENIES the motion. 20 Rule 60(b)(3) allows a party to move for relief from a final order because of “fraud 21 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 22 opposing party.” “To prevail, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence 23 that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the 24 l conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” 2 || De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 In her Rule 60(b)(3) motion, Isaacson claims that opposing counsel participated in fraud 4 or deceit, warranting vacatur of the Court’s order dismissing the matter. See generally Dkt. # 24. 5 Yet Isaacson includes no clear and convincing evidence that the dismissal was obtained through 6 opposing counsel’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. Instead, the motion appears to 7 || perpetuate Isaacson’s objections to opposing counsel’s legal arguments, relitigating the Court’s 8 determinations of law regarding Isaacson’s Article III standing.' For these reasons, the Court 9 DENIES Isaacson’s motion (Dkt. # 24). 10 Dated this 28th day of November, 2023. 1] Cob ¥. Char

13 John H. Chun United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | The Court has already denied Isaacson’s motion for reconsideration. See Dkt. ## 22, 23.