(PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA

Opinion

Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v. Veteran’s Administration of the United States of America & City of Fairfield, Defendants. On June 9, 2023, this court found this case was related to three other cases involving the same plaintiff, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Order, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Orlonzo Hedrington has filed a response to the related case order reassigning this case to the undersigned. Response, ECF No. 29. Plaintiff argues the court improperly related the cases and argues the order was procured by fraud. /d. at 2-4. Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), id. at 4, which states “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for... fraud... by an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. /// /// ///

Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may vacate a judgment for fraud “only when the fraud is established ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” United States v. Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir.1960)). Here, plaintiffs unsupported allegations of fraud do not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(3). Accordingly, the motion is denied. This order resolves ECF No. 29. DATED: June 28, 2023.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE