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

E.D. California

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

DecidedJune 29, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-01425

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA ((PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Veteran’s Administration of the United States 15 of America & City of Fairfield, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2023, this court found this case was related to three other cases involving the 19 | same plaintiff, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Order, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Orlonzo 20 | Hedrington has filed a response to the related case order reassigning this case to the undersigned. 21 | Response, ECF No. 29. Plaintiff argues the court improperly related the cases and argues the 22 | order was procured by fraud. /d. at 2-4. Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 | 60(b)(3), id. at 4, which states “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 24 | final judgment, order, or proceeding for... fraud... by an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 25 | /// 26 | /// 27 | ///

1 Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may vacate a judgment for fraud “only when the fraud is 2 | established ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” United States v. Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 3 | 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir.1960)). Here, 4 | plaintiffs unsupported allegations of fraud do not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(3). 5 | Accordingly, the motion is denied. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 29. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: June 28, 2023. 9

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Veteran’s Administration of the United States 15 of America & City of Fairfield, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2023, this court found this case was related to three other cases involving the 19 | same plaintiff, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Order, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Orlonzo 20 | Hedrington has filed a response to the related case order reassigning this case to the undersigned. 21 | Response, ECF No. 29. Plaintiff argues the court improperly related the cases and argues the 22 | order was procured by fraud. /d. at 2-4. Plaintiff invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 | 60(b)(3), id. at 4, which states “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 24 | final judgment, order, or proceeding for... fraud... by an opposing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 25 | /// 26 | /// 27 | ///

1 Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may vacate a judgment for fraud “only when the fraud is 2 | established ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” United States v. Est. of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 3 | 443-44 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir.1960)). Here, 4 | plaintiffs unsupported allegations of fraud do not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(3). 5 | Accordingly, the motion is denied. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 29. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: June 28, 2023. 9

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Hedrington v. Veteran's Admin. of the USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-hedrington-v-veterans-admin-of-the-usa-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack