Opinion
24-CV-00484-HSG
07-15-2024
BRIGHT HARRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 53
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a document styled as Plaintiffs' “objections” to the Court's July 2, 2024 order. Dkt. No. 53. In it, Plaintiffs offer a list of reasons why they “reject” the Court's prior findings and why they believe that their case should have been remanded to state court in its entirety. See id. The Court construes these objections as a motion to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). It is clear that Plaintiffs continue to disagree with the Court's analysis and want to pursue their case in state court. But such disagreement does not meet the standard for relief under Rule 60, and the Court therefore DENIES the motion.
While Plaintiffs have every right to disagree with the Court's decisions, they do not have the right to disregard the Court's orders or to submit serial filings attempting to relitigate issues the Court has conclusively resolved. To be clear, if Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's July 2 order, Dkt. No. 50, their proper and sole recourse is to file a timely appeal with the Ninth Circuit. // // //
The Court will not accept or review further filings in this closed case, and any further efforts to file materials on this docket will result in consequences which may include revocation of Plaintiffs' efiling privileges.
IT IS SO ORDERED.