Opinion
CASE NO. C18-176 MJP
02-19-2020
MARK MAYES, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 102). Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 103), the Reply (Dkt. No. 104), and all related papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
Background
On February 5, 2018 Plaintiff, Mark Mayes brought claims against his former employer, Defendant Amazon.com.dedc LLC ("Amazon"), for race-based discrimination and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) On June 4, 2019, finding that Mr. Mayes lacked the evidence to support his claims, the Court granted Amazon's Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of Amazon. (Dkt. Nos. 85, 86.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, finding that Mr. Mayes' appeal was frivolous, and dismissing his claims. (Dkt. No. 105.) Mr. Mayes now brings a Motion for Relief from a Final Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), based on his allegations that Amazon committed fraud by failing to retain electronically stored information after Mr. Mayes filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Dkt. No. 104 at 1.) Specifically, Mr. Mayes contends that Amazon failed to retain video footage from the fulfillment center where he worked, which he alleges would have shown a number of the racist and retaliatory incidents at the heart of his lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 104 at 2-3.)
Mr. Mayes previously raised this discovery argument in a Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 50), Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 71), and Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 91). In the Court's Order denying Mr. Mayes' Motion for Reconsideration, the Court noted: "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment dealt exclusively with discovery issues that were previously decided by the Court." (Dkt. No. 71 at 2.) Mr. Mayes also raised this issue in several other filings with this Court (Dkt. Nos. 92-95), and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Briefs for Appellant, Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32, Mayes v. Amazon.com.dedc LLC, No. 19-35494 (9th Cir. 2020)).
Discussion
Under Rule 60(b)(3) the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. "To prevail, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense." De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Mayes has not met this standard. He presents no evidence that Amazon failed to preserve crucial evidence in his case, or that the evidence in fact exists. Instead, his Motion and Reply consist entirely of allegations and argument without particularized facts demonstrating any misconduct. (Dkt. Nos. 102, 104.) Further, because Mr. Mayes has previously briefed this issue fifteen times, the Court finds that he has had the opportunity to fully and fairly present his case. De Saracho, 206 F.3d at 880.
Conclusion
Mr. Mayes' Motion for relief from Judgment (Dkt. No. 102) is therefore DENIED.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel.
Dated February 19, 2020.
/s/_________
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge