Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

S.D. California

Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

DecidedNovember 3, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-02595

StatusUnknown

This text of Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANET MALAUULU, as CASE NO. 18cv2595-LAB (AGS) 11 representative for the Estate of 12 Johnny Malauulu, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE 13 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT [Dkt. 25] 14 vs. 15 WAL-MART STORES, INC., et 16 al., 17

Defendants. 18 On July 12, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant 19 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), finding that Plaintiff Janet Malauulu had 20 no legal relationship with her deceased brother-in-law, Johnny Malauulu, 21 whose estate is the real party in interest. Dkt. 23. It appeared to the Court 22 that Plaintiff’s motivation for filing the action was, at least in part, the hope of 23 tolling the soon-to-expire limitations period while she pursued standing. Id. 24 at 4. The Ninth Circuit has rejected this practice, so the Court entered 25 judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. Id. at 4-5 (citing U.S. for Use & Benefit of Wulff 26 v. CMA, Inc., 890 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1989)). 27 Plaintiff was named special administrator of Mr. Malauulu’s estate on 28 February 14, 2020. Five months later—outside a “reasonable time” for such 1 motion—she asked the Court to set aside the judgment under 2 || Rule 60(b)(6). Dkt. 25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (setting “reasonable time” limit 3 Rule 60(b)(6) motions). That Rule provides relief from a judgment “only 4 ||where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 5 |}action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” In re International 6 || Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 The Court already ruled that Plaintiff wouldn’t be able to support her 8 || claims in this case with untimely-acquired standing, if she managed to get it. 9 || Now she’s gotten it, and she can’t use it to support her claims. Plaintiff isn’t 10 || entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 11 The Motion to Set Aside the Judgment is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: November 2, 2020 lam / A (Buywy 16 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANET MALAUULU, as CASE NO. 18cv2595-LAB (AGS) 11 representative for the Estate of 12 Johnny Malauulu, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE 13 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT [Dkt. 25] 14 vs. 15 WAL-MART STORES, INC., et 16 al., 17

Defendants. 18 On July 12, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant 19 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), finding that Plaintiff Janet Malauulu had 20 no legal relationship with her deceased brother-in-law, Johnny Malauulu, 21 whose estate is the real party in interest. Dkt. 23. It appeared to the Court 22 that Plaintiff’s motivation for filing the action was, at least in part, the hope of 23 tolling the soon-to-expire limitations period while she pursued standing. Id. 24 at 4. The Ninth Circuit has rejected this practice, so the Court entered 25 judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. Id. at 4-5 (citing U.S. for Use & Benefit of Wulff 26 v. CMA, Inc., 890 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1989)). 27 Plaintiff was named special administrator of Mr. Malauulu’s estate on 28 February 14, 2020. Five months later—outside a “reasonable time” for such 1 motion—she asked the Court to set aside the judgment under 2 || Rule 60(b)(6). Dkt. 25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (setting “reasonable time” limit 3 Rule 60(b)(6) motions). That Rule provides relief from a judgment “only 4 ||where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely 5 |}action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” In re International 6 || Fibercom, Inc., 503 F.3d 933, 941 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 The Court already ruled that Plaintiff wouldn’t be able to support her 8 || claims in this case with untimely-acquired standing, if she managed to get it. 9 || Now she’s gotten it, and she can’t use it to support her claims. Plaintiff isn’t 10 || entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 11 The Motion to Set Aside the Judgment is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: November 2, 2020 lam / A (Buywy 16 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 17 Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malauulu-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack