1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA, Case No. 5:23-cv-05182-EJD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RULE 60(B) MOTIONS 10 v.
11 T-MOBILE US, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 116 Defendants. 12
13 Before the Court are Jaiyeola’s two motions: (1) to vacate the Court’s order granting 14 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file, Mot. to Vacate 15 MTD Order, ECF No. 103; Opp’n, ECF No. 108; Joinders, ECF Nos. 109, 110, 111; Reply, ECF 16 No. 112; and (2) to vacate the Court’s order denying Jaiyeola’s motion to disqualify the 17 Undersigned. Mot. to Vacate Disqualification Order, ECF No. 116. 18 After carefully considering the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for 19 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the 20 Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motions. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 The Court previously summarized the procedural history and factual allegations in its prior 23 orders and will therefore only discuss the more recent background relevant to the present motions. 24 On April 2, 2024, the Court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint 26 (“MTD Order”). MTD Order, ECF No. 101. The Court closed this case and entered judgment. 27 Judgment, ECF No. 102. Jaiyeola subsequently filed a motion to vacate the MTD Order under 1 Rule 60(b) and a separate motion to disqualify the Undersigned. The Court denied Jaiyeola’s 2 motion to disqualify on May 30, 2025, (“Disqualification Order”) and took his motion to vacate 3 the MTD Order under submission. Disqualification Order, ECF No. 114; ECF No. 115. This was 4 Jaiyeola’s second denied motion for disqualification of the Undersigned. See ECF No. 75. Five 5 days later, Jaiyeola filed a motion to vacate the Disqualification Order under Rule 60(b). ECF No. 6 116. The Court now considers Jaiyeola’s two Rule 60(b) motions to vacate the MTD Order and 7 the Disqualification Order. 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final 10 judgment, order, or proceeding upon a showing of “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) 11 newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; 12 or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 13 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion is not a vehicle to 14 re-litigate the underlying claims. To the contrary, “the merits of a case are not before the court on 15 a Rule 60(b) motion.” Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 61 (9th Cir. 2004). The 16 party seeking relief under Rule 60 bears the burden of establishing one or more of the listed 17 grounds for relief. See Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). It is within “the 18 sound discretion of the trial court” to determine whether to grant such relief. Thompson v. Hous. 19 Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A. Judicial Notice 22 As an initial matter Jaiyeola requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following 23 orders: Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-04145-EJD, Doc. #29 (N.D. Cal. 2016) and 24 Moua v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 5:10-cv-01070-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012), Doc. # 64. 25 Courts may consider materials outside a complaint where such materials are incorporated 26 by reference or subject to judicial notice. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 27 (9th Cir. 2018). Judicial notice is proper if the facts requested to be noticed are “not subject to 1 reasonable dispute” because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 2 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). In granting requests for judicial 3 notice, the Court may only take notice as to the existence of the record “and the facts contained 4 therein, not as to the (disputed) inferences that Defendant [may] seek[] to draw from them.” 5 Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, No. 5-CV-01597-EDL, 2006 WL 167657, at *3 (N.D. 6 Cal. Jan. 20, 2006); Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (“But a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed 7 facts contained in such public records.”). 8 Here, Jaiyeola asks that the Court take judicial notice of two orders authored by the 9 Undersigned. “As a general rule, a court in one case will not take judicial notice of its own 10 records in another and distinct case even between the same parties, unless the prior proceedings 11 are introduced into evidence.” Lowe v. McDonald, 221 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1955). There are 12 two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the prior action is brought into the pleadings in the case on 13 trial, or (2) where the two cases represent related litigation. Id. Caracciolo and Moua have not 14 been introduced into evidence and neither exception is available here. Accordingly, Jaiyeola’s 15 request is DENIED. 16 B. Motion to Vacate MTD Order 17 Jaiyeola argues that the MTD Order should be vacated under Rules 60(b)(1), (b)(4), and 18 (b)(6). The Court will address each in turn. 19 1. Rule 60(b)(1): Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect 20 Jaiyeola argues that the MTD Order must be vacated under Rule 60(b)(1) for several 21 reasons. 22 First, Jaiyeola disagrees with the Court’s finding that he lacked statutory standing and 23 argues that the Court improperly played “the role of a trier of fact.” Mot. to Vacate MTD Order 24 4–8. Disagreements with the Court’s finding is not a basis upon which to vacate an order under 25 Rule 60(b)(1). The Court also made no evidentiary findings in its MTD Order. The Court relied 26 on the facts alleged to conclude that Jaiyeola did not have statutory standing. 27 Second, Jaiyeola argues that the Court considered facts from Jaiyeola’s proposed second 1 amended complaint (“SAC”) in the motion to dismiss his first amended complaint (“FAC”). Id. at 2 8–9. The Court is permitted to consider allegations in a proposed amended complaint when 3 determining whether it would be futile for the plaintiff to file that second amended complaint. 4 Third, Jaiyeola disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of Ninth Circuit precedents. Id. at 5 9–11. Disagreements with the Court’s finding and interpretation of law is not a basis upon which 6 to vacate an order under Rule 60(b)(1). 7 Fourth, Jaiyeola argues that the Court took judicial notice of cases where Jaiyeola was a 8 plaintiff without notice. Id. at 11–14. This is not a proper ground for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(1). 9 Regardless, as a general matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 201(e) does not prohibit a court 10 from taking judicial notice sua sponte before notifying a party.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA, Case No. 5:23-cv-05182-EJD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING RULE 60(B) MOTIONS 10 v.
11 T-MOBILE US, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 116 Defendants. 12
13 Before the Court are Jaiyeola’s two motions: (1) to vacate the Court’s order granting 14 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file, Mot. to Vacate 15 MTD Order, ECF No. 103; Opp’n, ECF No. 108; Joinders, ECF Nos. 109, 110, 111; Reply, ECF 16 No. 112; and (2) to vacate the Court’s order denying Jaiyeola’s motion to disqualify the 17 Undersigned. Mot. to Vacate Disqualification Order, ECF No. 116. 18 After carefully considering the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for 19 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the 20 Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motions. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 The Court previously summarized the procedural history and factual allegations in its prior 23 orders and will therefore only discuss the more recent background relevant to the present motions. 24 On April 2, 2024, the Court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint 26 (“MTD Order”). MTD Order, ECF No. 101. The Court closed this case and entered judgment. 27 Judgment, ECF No. 102. Jaiyeola subsequently filed a motion to vacate the MTD Order under 1 Rule 60(b) and a separate motion to disqualify the Undersigned. The Court denied Jaiyeola’s 2 motion to disqualify on May 30, 2025, (“Disqualification Order”) and took his motion to vacate 3 the MTD Order under submission. Disqualification Order, ECF No. 114; ECF No. 115. This was 4 Jaiyeola’s second denied motion for disqualification of the Undersigned. See ECF No. 75. Five 5 days later, Jaiyeola filed a motion to vacate the Disqualification Order under Rule 60(b). ECF No. 6 116. The Court now considers Jaiyeola’s two Rule 60(b) motions to vacate the MTD Order and 7 the Disqualification Order. 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final 10 judgment, order, or proceeding upon a showing of “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) 11 newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; 12 or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 13 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion is not a vehicle to 14 re-litigate the underlying claims. To the contrary, “the merits of a case are not before the court on 15 a Rule 60(b) motion.” Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 61 (9th Cir. 2004). The 16 party seeking relief under Rule 60 bears the burden of establishing one or more of the listed 17 grounds for relief. See Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). It is within “the 18 sound discretion of the trial court” to determine whether to grant such relief. Thompson v. Hous. 19 Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A. Judicial Notice 22 As an initial matter Jaiyeola requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following 23 orders: Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-04145-EJD, Doc. #29 (N.D. Cal. 2016) and 24 Moua v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 5:10-cv-01070-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012), Doc. # 64. 25 Courts may consider materials outside a complaint where such materials are incorporated 26 by reference or subject to judicial notice. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 27 (9th Cir. 2018). Judicial notice is proper if the facts requested to be noticed are “not subject to 1 reasonable dispute” because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 2 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). In granting requests for judicial 3 notice, the Court may only take notice as to the existence of the record “and the facts contained 4 therein, not as to the (disputed) inferences that Defendant [may] seek[] to draw from them.” 5 Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, No. 5-CV-01597-EDL, 2006 WL 167657, at *3 (N.D. 6 Cal. Jan. 20, 2006); Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (“But a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed 7 facts contained in such public records.”). 8 Here, Jaiyeola asks that the Court take judicial notice of two orders authored by the 9 Undersigned. “As a general rule, a court in one case will not take judicial notice of its own 10 records in another and distinct case even between the same parties, unless the prior proceedings 11 are introduced into evidence.” Lowe v. McDonald, 221 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1955). There are 12 two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the prior action is brought into the pleadings in the case on 13 trial, or (2) where the two cases represent related litigation. Id. Caracciolo and Moua have not 14 been introduced into evidence and neither exception is available here. Accordingly, Jaiyeola’s 15 request is DENIED. 16 B. Motion to Vacate MTD Order 17 Jaiyeola argues that the MTD Order should be vacated under Rules 60(b)(1), (b)(4), and 18 (b)(6). The Court will address each in turn. 19 1. Rule 60(b)(1): Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect 20 Jaiyeola argues that the MTD Order must be vacated under Rule 60(b)(1) for several 21 reasons. 22 First, Jaiyeola disagrees with the Court’s finding that he lacked statutory standing and 23 argues that the Court improperly played “the role of a trier of fact.” Mot. to Vacate MTD Order 24 4–8. Disagreements with the Court’s finding is not a basis upon which to vacate an order under 25 Rule 60(b)(1). The Court also made no evidentiary findings in its MTD Order. The Court relied 26 on the facts alleged to conclude that Jaiyeola did not have statutory standing. 27 Second, Jaiyeola argues that the Court considered facts from Jaiyeola’s proposed second 1 amended complaint (“SAC”) in the motion to dismiss his first amended complaint (“FAC”). Id. at 2 8–9. The Court is permitted to consider allegations in a proposed amended complaint when 3 determining whether it would be futile for the plaintiff to file that second amended complaint. 4 Third, Jaiyeola disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of Ninth Circuit precedents. Id. at 5 9–11. Disagreements with the Court’s finding and interpretation of law is not a basis upon which 6 to vacate an order under Rule 60(b)(1). 7 Fourth, Jaiyeola argues that the Court took judicial notice of cases where Jaiyeola was a 8 plaintiff without notice. Id. at 11–14. This is not a proper ground for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(1). 9 Regardless, as a general matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 201(e) does not prohibit a court 10 from taking judicial notice sua sponte before notifying a party. Rule 201(e) provides that, if a 11 court judicially notices an adjudicative fact without notifying a party, the party may make a timely 12 request to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice after the fact. Jaiyeola has made no 13 such request here. 14 Fifth, Jaiyeola argues that the Court played “the role of a trier of fact” and made improper 15 conclusory statements when it compared the allegations in the FAC and proposed SAC to 16 conclude that amendment would be futile. Id. at 13–14. Jaiyeola quotes the following passages 17 where he believes that Court made conclusory findings of fact:
18 Rather, he has affirmatively pled facts in both his FAC and proposed SAC which preclude him from relief . . . . 19 As discussed above, Jaiyeola alleged that he did not purchase the 20 iPhone 15 Pro at the initiation of this suit because he knew that the iPhone 15 Pro was not made entirely of titanium, and he now pleads 21 in the proposed SAC that he recently purchased the iPhone 15 Pro despite his knowledge of the materials in the iPhone 15 Pro. These 22 facts reveal that Jaiyeola at no point relied on Defendants’ alleged false advertising in making his purchase and therefore suffered no 23 economic injury as the result of Defendants’ alleged false advertising. 24 Id. at 14–16 (quoting MTD Order 7). 25 While it is true that the Court may not reach conclusions regarding the merits of Jaiyeola’s 26 claims in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may compare proposed amendments 27 and the operative complaint to conclude that amendment would be futile, as it did here. 1 Sixth, Jaiyeola argues that the Court ignored facts in the record. Id. at 14–16. The Court 2 properly considered all alleged facts relevant to its standing analysis. The Court did not reach the 3 merits of Jaiyeola’s claims, thus other facts in the record regarding the merits of Jaiyeola’s claims 4 were unnecessary to the Court’s findings. 5 Seventh, Jaiyeola argues that the Court denied leave to amend based on futility without a 6 motion requesting leave to amend. Id. at 16–18. However, the MTD Order explicitly resolves 7 Jaiyeola’s February 3, 2024, motion for leave to file his SAC at ECF No. 88. MTD Order 6–7. 8 This motion was fully briefed at ECF Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, and 97 and taken under submission. But 9 even without a motion seeking leave, the Court is permitted to grant dismissal without leave to 10 amend upon a finding that amendment would be futile, which the Court found here. 11 Therefore, the Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motion to vacate the MTD Order under Rule 12 60(b)(1). 13 2. Rule 60(b)(4): Void Judgment 14 Next, Jaiyeola argues that the Judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) because the Court 15 denied Jaiyeola’s due process rights by failing to liberally construe his pleadings as a pro se party. 16 Mot. to Vacate MTD Order 19–22. This is not a proper ground for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(4). 17 Regardless, the Court provided Jaiyeola procedural leniency and liberally construed his pleadings, 18 but the special considerations afforded to pro se parties have their limits. As the Court stated in its 19 MTD Order, “even pro se pleadings ‘must meet some minimum threshold in providing a 20 defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong’ and how they are entitled to relief.” 21 MTD Order 6 (quoting Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995)). 22 Therefore, the Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motion to vacate the MTD Order under Rule 23 60(b)(4). 24 3. Rule 60(b)(6): Other Extraordinary Circumstances Justifying Relief 25 Finally, Jaiyeola argues that the MTD Order must be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6) because 26 the Court was unfair to Jaiyeola in denying his request for judicial notice, deciding his motion 27 without oral argument, and denying him leave to amend. Mot. to Vacate MTD Order 22–24. 1 These are typical procedures in deciding motions to dismiss and do not rise to the level of 2 “extraordinary” actions. See U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 3 1993) (collecting cases). 4 Therefore, the Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motion to vacate the MTD Order under Rule 5 || 60(b)(6). 6 C. Motion to Vacate Disqualification Order 7 Jaiyeola filed a second motion arguing that the Disqualification Order should be vacated 8 || under Rule 60(b). Mot. to Vacate Disqualification Order. The Court finds that Jatyeola has failed 9 to offer any proper basis to vacate the Disqualification Order. Although Jaiyeola cites to Rule 10 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4), Jaiyeola does not advance any arguments regarding a mistake, 11 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect or voidness. Instead, Jaiyeola repeats arguments made 12 || in his original motion for disqualification and disputes the conclusions of the Court. 13 Therefore, the Court DENIES Jaiyeola’s motion to vacate the Disqualification Order 14 under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4). 15 || Iv. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Jatyeola’s motions to vacate the MTD Order 3 17 and Disqualification Order. This case remains closed. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 30, 2025 20
EDWARD J. DAVILA 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:23-cv-05182-EJD ORDER DEN. RULE 60(B) MOTS.