Malauulu v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Opinion

JANET MALAUULU, as CASE NO. 18cv2595-LAB (AGS) representative for the Estate of Johnny Malauulu, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE Plaintiff, JUDGMENT [Dkt. 25] vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,

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