Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 26, 2024

Docket1:20-cv-00033

StatusUnknown

This text of Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc. (Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:20-cv-33-MOC

SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) ) ) THE COMPUTER HAUS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment, filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60. (Doc. No. 343). The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 18, 2024. At the hearing, the Court stated in open court that the motion would be denied. This Order is intended to memorialize the Court’s ruling in open court. Under Rule 60(b)(3), a party may be relieved from an adverse judgment by the court because of “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3). The moving party must establish three factors to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion: (1) the moving party must have a meritorious defense; (2) the moving party must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the misconduct prevented the moving party from fully presenting its case. Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 630 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Square Constr. Co. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 657 F.2d 68, 71 (4th Cir. 1981)). Defendants have not shown that they meet the required elements for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion. To the extent the Court excluded related admissible evidence during trial, it cannot be reached by a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and the time to challenge the ruling under Rule 59 has passed. Moreover, the Court made no error in sua sponte precluding Defendants from impeaching the credibility of Lead Plaintiff Jahagirdar or in excluding any references during the trial to Jahagirdar’s pending criminal charges. Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment, (Doc. No. 343), is DENIED.

i ) evrnna Max O. Cogburn iC yg United States District Judge □□ □□

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:20-cv-33-MOC

SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) ) ) THE COMPUTER HAUS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment, filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60. (Doc. No. 343). The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 18, 2024. At the hearing, the Court stated in open court that the motion would be denied. This Order is intended to memorialize the Court’s ruling in open court. Under Rule 60(b)(3), a party may be relieved from an adverse judgment by the court because of “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3). The moving party must establish three factors to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion: (1) the moving party must have a meritorious defense; (2) the moving party must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the misconduct prevented the moving party from fully presenting its case. Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 630 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Square Constr. Co. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 657 F.2d 68, 71 (4th Cir. 1981)). Defendants have not shown that they meet the required elements for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion. To the extent the Court excluded related admissible evidence during trial, it cannot be reached by a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and the time to challenge the ruling under Rule 59 has passed. Moreover, the Court made no error in sua sponte precluding Defendants from impeaching the credibility of Lead Plaintiff Jahagirdar or in excluding any references during the trial to Jahagirdar’s pending criminal charges. Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Judgment, (Doc. No. 343), is DENIED.

i ) evrnna Max O. Cogburn iC yg United States District Judge □□ □□

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jahagirdar-v-the-computer-haus-nc-inc-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack