Awasom v. Presbyterian Homes & Services
Filing
78
ORDER Denying 73 Request to Vacate Judgment filed by Jonathan F. Awasom (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 06/03/2009. (PJM)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 07-1591(DSD/JJG) Jonathan F. Awasom, plaintiff, v. Presbyterian Homes & Services, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, Defendant. Jonathan F. Awasom, 2910 Cavell Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55426, pro se. Teresa M. Thompson, Esq. and Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel for defendant. ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Jonathan Awasom's ("Awasom") motion to vacate judgment. Based upon the file, record
and proceedings herein, the court denies Awasom's motion. The facts of this case are discussed in the court's April 14, 2008, order. (Doc. No. 58.) In that order, the court dismissed
this action without prejudice as a sanction for Awasom's steadfast refusal "to adhere to the court's discovery orders." (Id. at 3.)
In addition, the court granted defendant Presbyterian Homes & Services' ("PHS") request for costs and attorney's fees. After
receiving an affidavit identifying reasonable costs and attorney's fees, the court ordered Awasom to pay PHS $450 and entered judgment on May 5, 2008. Awasom filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2008,
which was dismissed as untimely on August 7, 2008.
Awasom now
moves to vacate the court's May 5, 2008, order and judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1-3) and (d)(3). Rule 60(b) permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); [and] (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1-3).
Rule 60(d)(3) affirms the court's power to "set aside a judgment for fraud on the court." Id. 60(d)(3).
In this case, Awasom identifies no mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence that supports vacating the court's judgment and order. Rather, Awasom
asserts that PHS prejudiced the court by intentionally conspiring with his previous counsel to "obstruct justice and to poison the well," which resulted in dismissal of the action despite his efforts to comply with the relevant rules and orders. (Pl. Mem. at 11.) To support his claim, Awasom generally refers to PHS's to an amended case complaint pursuant and to his former counsel's judge's
opposition withdrawal
from
the
the
magistrate
December 19, 2007, order.
The court, however, dismissed this
action without prejudice because of Awasom's failure to comply with 2
the court's discovery orders, not because of any action or inaction by his previous counsel or PHS. Therefore, relief pursuant to Rule 60 is not warranted, and the court denies Awasom's motion. In addition, PHS requests attorney's fees. The April 14,
2008, order expressly cautioned Awasom that if he chose to pursue his claim against PHS in federal court he would "be expected to know and to strictly adhere to all of the relevant rules. Failure
to do so will likely result in stronger sanctions than imposed here." merit, (Doc. No. 58 at 5.) Awasom specifically Although the instant motion lacks identified and complied with the
relevant rules. attorney's fees.
Accordingly, the court denies PHS's request for
Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Awasom's motion to vacate judgment [Doc. No. 73] is denied. Dated: June 3, 2009 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
