Opinion
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR VACATE JUDGMENT [re: docket no. 20]
This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.
JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 1, 2006, the Court entered judgment for defendants Buckley Real Estate, Inc. and Sean C. Buckley ("the Buckley Defendants"). On November 6, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider or vacate judgment. On December 20, 2006, the Buckley Defendants filed opposition to the motion. On December 28, 2006, defendant Washington Mutual joined the Buckley Defendants' opposition. On December 29, 2006, Defendant Dodie Gaines filed opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs filed an addendum to the motion on December 29, 2006.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part as follows:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made "within a reasonable time" and, with respect to reasons (1), (2), and (3), cannot be made more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Id . A Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. Id .
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek relief from the judgment in favor of the Buckley Defendants in the form of a continuance that would allow them to secure legal representation. Even assuming that Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) allows such relief, the Court concludes that it would not be appropriate in this case. Plaintiffs filed the instant action nine months ago, and their efforts to secure legal representation apparently have been unsuccessful. The Court dismissed the action with leave to amend, but Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time. The Court concludes that the possibility that Plaintiffs will obtain legal representation in the future does not justify relief from the judgment entered on November 1, 2006. Plaintiffs do not explain why they expect to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
Defendants Washington Mutual Bank and Dodie Gaines, against whom the action also was dismissed on July 28, 2006, have asked the Court to enter judgment for them because Plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint within the prescribed time. Plaintiffs object to the proposed judgment on the same basis that they ask for relief from the judgment in favor of the Buckley Defendants. For the same reasons that it concludes that it must deny the Rule 60(b) motion, the Court concludes that it should not defer entry of judgment for the remaining defendants. Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment for Defendants Washington Mutual Bank and Dodie Gaines.
IV. ORDER
Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reconsider or vacate the judgment is DENIED. The clerk shall close the file.