The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang Miriam Veliz-Baird N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Stephen Kam Lupe Rose Shelby
Sonya Shelby
Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT,
VACATE BIFURCATION AGREEMENT, AND DISMISS
PROCEEDINGS (Dkt. 115, filed on March 12, 2025)
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt.
117, filed on March 20, 2025)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
(Dkt. 119, filed on March 24, 2025)
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR HEARING (Dkt. 121, filed
on March 24, 2025)
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2021, plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (“SEC”) filed this action against defendants SHE Beverage, Inc., (“SHE
Beverage’), Lupe L. Rose (“Rose”), Sonja F. Shelby, and Katherine E. Dirden
(collectively, “defendants”). Dkt. 1 at 2. The SEC alleges that defendants violated
Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1993 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§
77(e)(a), 77(e)(c), 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78)(b) and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C_F.R. § 240.10b5(a)-(c), by conducting a fraudulent offering
between 2017 and 2019 and raising $15.4 million. Dkt. 1 at 3.
The history and background of this case are well-known to the parties and set forth
in detail in the Court’s December 14, 2023 order. See dkt. 108 at 1-4. The Court briefly
recites the most recent procedural events below.
On September 18, 2023, the Court granted the SEC’s motion for default judgment
against SHE Beverage. Dkt. 98. On December 14, 2023, the Court granted the SEC’s
motion for disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and partially granted the SEC’s
motion for civil penalties. Dkt. 108 at 15. In the December 14, 2023 order, the Court
denied Rose’s request to dismiss the case, which was made in her opposition to the SEC’s
motion. Id. at 6. On January 16, 2024, the Court entered final judgments against all
defendants. Dkts. 110-113.
On January 18, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of
California filed a criminal indictment against defendant Rose, alleging that she “marketed
SHE Beverage to the victim-investors as a successful beverage company [and]... falsely
stated that the money raised... would be used to fund the operations of SHE Beverage,”
when in fact “Rose used the funds personally” to enrich herself, her friends, and her
family. See United States of America v. Lupe Rose, Case No. 2:24-cr-00037-GW-1, dkt.
1 19. The trial in Rose’s criminal case 1s set for September 23, 2025. See id., dkt. 40.
On March 12, 2025, Rose, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in the instant case to
set aside judgment, vacate the bifurcation agreement, and dismiss the proceedings.! Dkt.
115 (Mot. 1”). On March 20, 2025, Rose filed an “amended motion to dismiss.” Dkt.
117 (Mot. 2”). The same day, Rose filed a supplemental memorandum regarding the
SEC expert’s report at issue in this matter.?7 Dkt. 118 (“Mot. 3”). On March 24, 2025,
Rose filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60 (“Rule 60”). Dkt 119 (“Mot. 4”). The same day, Rose filed a notice of clarification of
her recent filings, a notice of or request for a hearing on April 28, 2025, and a declaration
in support of her filings. Dkts. 120, 121, 122. Her notice of clarification states that the
“primary motion for the Court’s consideration” is the Rule 60 motion. Dkt. 120 at 2. On
Rose attached Exhibits A-H and Exhibits J-K to her first motion. See dkt. 115.
? Rose attached Exhibits Z-1, Z-2, and Z-5 to her third motion. See dkt. 118.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
March 26, 2025, the SEC filed its opposition to Rose’s motions. Dkt. 123 (“Opp.”). The
same day, Rose filed her reply. Dkt. 124 (“Reply”).
On March 31, 2025, Rose filed an emergency supplemental motion for immediate
relief, a comprehensive restraining order, and potential Supreme Court referral. Dkt. 126.
On April 3, 2025, the Court denied Rose’s motion for emergency relief, indicated that it
construed Rose’s four motions as a Rule 60 motion to set aside the judgment in this case,
and set a motion hearing for April 28, 2025.7 Dkt. 127.
On April 28, 2025, the Court held a hearing. Having carefully considered the
parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any
order based on: “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6)
extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under Rule
60(b)(6), the so-called catch-all provision, the party seeking relief “must demonstrate
both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding
with the action in a proper fashion.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d
1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, the Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that “[t]o
receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case.” Lal v. California, 610
F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010). This Rule must be “used sparingly as an equitable remedy
to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances
prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005)). Any
> The Court provided a courtesy copy of its order denying Rose’s emergency motion to
the Court and all counsel in Rose’s criminal case, “to be certain that Rose’s criminal
defense counsel 1s fully apprised of her motions” in the instant civil case. Dkt. 127 at 2.
Similarly, the Court is providing a courtesy copy of this order to Rose’s criminal defense
counsel.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
Rule 60(b) motion must be brought within a reasonable time and no later than one year
after entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), the Court may set aside a judgment for “fraud on the
court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). The Supreme Court has said that “[o]ut of deference to
the deep-rooted policy in favor of the repose of judgments ..., courts of equity have been
cautious in exercising this power.” Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 332
238, 244 (1944). Relief pursuant to this provision is therefore “available only to
prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47
(1998). The Court asks whether the fraud at issue “harmed the integrity of the judicial
process.” United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011).
Il. DISCUSSION
In her first motion, Rose argues that the SEC “willfully ignored” more than 100
pages of accounting documents, including $2.7 million of personal investment, a
financial report audited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a detailed
ledger, and six verified business locations. Mot. 1 at 2. Rose also asserts that the SEC
“suppressed” legitimate business expenses, including those for research and
development, employee payroll, and operational and marketing costs. Id. at 3. Rose
argues that the SEC’s attorneys threatened her with “reputational destruction,” coerced
her into signing a bifurcation agreement, and prevented a “fair presentation” of financial
documentation. Id. at 4. She states that a recent Supreme Court case, Sec. & Exch.
Comm'n v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109, 140 (2024), shows that the enforcement action against
her was unconstitutional. Id. Further, she states that the referral to the United States
Department of Justice was based on a “fabricated narrative.” Id. She requests that the
Court review the attached accounting statements, invalidate the bifurcation agreement,
“dismiss the current judgment” against her, sanction the SEC for misconduct, and restore
her reputation. Id. at 5.
In her second motion, Rose appears to argue that the SEC “deliberately
suppressed” SHE Beverage’s business portfolio. Mot. 2 at 1. Rose asserts that SHE
Beverage’s “wholly owned subsidiaries and acquisitions” include: a women’s football
league association; Pink Leaf, an entity focused on “CBD, Hemp & Cannabis”: Brandy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
Inc., an “on-demand apparel company”; “WFLA TV Studios (Bouyant Studios),” a media
production and content creation enterprise; “SHE MEETS Dating App”; Women’s Sports
Entertainment TV, a streaming platform; Re-life Inc.; Shelby Rose Wines Cider; Mink
Bath Bombs, a personal care and wellness product line; Caffeto, a provider of specialty
coffee and beverage innovation; and “Swapp Technology App.” Id. at 1-6. Rose also
states that SHE Beverage had three real estate holdings, or “corporate housing
properties.” Id. at 6. Rose appears to argue that the expert report of Eric Poer (“Poer’),
relied upon by the SEC to analyze SHE Beverage’s financial records, representations to
investors, and indica of fraud, constitutes “financial analysis misconduct.” Id. at 7. She
asserts that Poer arbitrarily removed 70% of the transactions in the financial records, used
a “selective” time frame, and deliberately excluded legitimate business transactions. Id.
Finally, Rose appears to argue that the Private Placement Memorandum through which
SHE Beverage offered and sold stock to investors included transparent language, stating
that the amounts were an “estimate” and that all risks were disclosed. Id.
In her third motion, titled “supplemental memorandum regarding SEC’s selective
data manipulation and misrepresentation of evidence,” Rose states that Poer admitted to
eliminating data. Mot. 3 at 1. Specifically, Rose asserts that Poer eliminated (1) all
transactions not labelled “SHE Beverage” or “SHE Brand”; (2) all transactions related to
legitimate subsidiary entities; (3) cash inflow transactions; and (4) all transactions outside
of the expert’s “arbitrary time restrictions.” Id. at 1-2. Rose then argues that the SEC
told Rose that she would be able to present her evidence to the Court, but “such evidence
was not allowed.” Id. at 2.
In her fourth motion, Rose argues that relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(1)
because of mistake and excusable neglect, as she could not respond to this litigation
because of family caregiving responsibilities, limited financial resources, and lack of
legal representation. Mot. 4 at 2. She next argues that her motion should be granted
under Rule 60(b)(2) because of newly discovered evidence, namely, errors in Poer’s
financial reports. Id. Rose then asserts that relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(3)
because of fraud and misrepresentation, in that the SEC engaged in misconduct through
suppression of exculpatory financial evidence. Id. Further, Rose highlights several cases
overturning SEC judgments, including Jarkesy. Id. at 3. Finally, Rose contends that she
has developed draft legislation to prevent prosecutorial overreach and has made persistent
efforts to challenge the SEC’s claims. Id. at 4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
In opposition, the SEC first argues that Rose’s filings violate Local Rule 7-3,
because she failed to meet and confer; Local Rule 7-20, because she did not include a
proposed order; and Local Rules 7-4 and 7-5, because she did not include a notice of
motion and memorandum of points and authorities. Opp. at 5. The SEC contends that
this provides a basis for striking these filings, regardless of Rose’s pro se status. Id.
Second, the SEC argues that Rose’s motions are untimely, whether construed
under Rules 12(b), 59(e), or 60(b). Id. at 6. The SEC asserts that Rose’s motions were
filed over three years after her answer was filed and 14 months after final judgment was
entered against her. Id. Under Rule 12(b), the SEC argues that Rose was required to file
a motion to dismiss by November 15, 2021, 1.e., when she filed her answer. Id. Under
Rule 59, the SEC contends that Rose was required to file a motion for reconsideration by
February 16, 2024, 1.e., 28 days after entry of judgment. Id. Finally, under Rule
60(b)(1)-(3), the SEC asserts that Rose was required to file a motion for relief from final
judgment by January 16, 2025, 1.e., one year after entry of judgment. Id.
Third, the SEC argues that Rose’s motions are without merit because they repeat
the same arguments and attach a similar set of exhibits as those attached to Rose’s prior
filings. Id. at 7. As construed under Rule 12(b), the SEC contends that the Court has
already ruled on and denied Rose’s motion to dismiss, when Rose submitted “virtually
the same set of unsubstantiated exhibits” in 2023. Id. As construed under Rule 59 or 60,
the SEC asserts that Rose does not present new law, evidence, or the need to correct clear
error. Id. at 8. While Rose does cite Jarkesy as intervening law, the SEC argues that its
holding on the constitutionality of administrative proceedings for fraud claims “has no
bearing on the instant case, which was filed in federal district court.” Id. at 8, n.3.
Fourth, the SEC argues that Rose’s false accusations that the SEC and the United
States Department of Justice “suppress[ed] financial evidence” and “fabricat| ed]
allegations of financial impropriety” should be stricken because they are unsupported and
frivolous. Id. at 9. Fifth, the SEC asserts that Rose’s filings inappropriately include
personal identifying information of specific investors and the amount they invested in
SHE Beverage. Id. The SEC contends that this “sensitive, private” information violates
Local Rule 5.2-1, which requires that “[p|arties shall carefully examine the documents
exhibits, or attachments to be filed with the Court in order to protect any sensitive and
private information.” Id.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
In reply, Rose argues that Jarkesy “directly impacts the legitimacy” of the
prosecution against her. Reply at 1. Rose next asserts that her motions are not untimely
because extraordinary circumstances are present, including: “systematic suppression of
exculpatory evidence,” “fabrication of financial allegations,” and “violation of
fundamental due process principles.” Id. at 2. Rose states that her filings “provide
comprehensive accounting documentation” and “expose procedural irregularities.” Id.
Rose argues that SHE Beverage adequately documented its business expenses and that
Poer, the SEC’s expert witness, included only select financial information in his report.
Id. Additionally, Rose asserts that the SEC engaged in “systematic misconduct” in
prosecuting this case. Id. These allegations include: extortion and duress in the
negotiation of the bifurcation agreement, breach of the agreement terms, “character
assassination,” the filing of motions “designed to financially and emotionally exhaust the
defendant,” “willful manipulation of financial documentation,” and “knowingly creating
barriers to fair legal defense.” Id. at 4-6.
The Court finds that Rose’s motions, construed under Rule 60, are untimely and
fail to establish a claim for relief. Rose expressly requests relief pursuant to: (1) Rule
60(b)(1), for mistake and excusable neglect; (2) Rule 60(b)(2), for newly discovered
evidence; and (3) Rule 60(b)(3), for fraud and misrepresentation by the SEC. Mot. 4 at 2.
Rule 60(c) states that “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable
time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment
or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Accordingly, Rose was
required to file her motion no more than a year after the entry of judgment in her case.
Final judgment was entered against Rose on January 16, 2024, see dkt. 111, while the
instant motions were filed between March 12, 2025 and March 24, 2025. Because Rose
did not file her motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) by January 16, 2025, the
Court concludes that her motions are untimely.
Rose does not expressly request relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which grants
relief from a final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief” 1f a motion is
brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
However, the Supreme Court has established that relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is only
appropriate when sought on a basis not covered by subsections b(1) through (b)(5).
Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “‘is to be
utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’” Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. Cnty. of
San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land &
Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993)). The Court finds that Rose has
presented no evidence demonstrating the purported extraordinary circumstances she
faced or why she was unable to take timely action. Accordingly, the Court finds that
relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is also inappropriate in this case.
Even if Rose’s motions were timely filed, the Court finds that Rose’s claims fail on
the merits. The Court addresses each of Rose’s arguments in turn.
As for mistake and excusable neglect, Rose states that her “inability to fully
respond” to the litigation was due to “overwhelming personal caregiving
responsibilities,” limited financial resources, and a lack of legal representation. Mot. 4 at
2. Asa threshold matter, it is not clear what Rose means by her “inability to fully
respond” to the litigation. On March 22, 2023, Rose signed a voluntary bifurcated
consent agreement in which she agreed to be subject to officer-and-director bars and to be
permanently enjoined from future securities law violations. Dkt. 85. On March 29,
2023, the Court entered the proposed consent judgment against Rose. Dkt. 87. After
granting the SEC’s motion for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties
against Rose, the Court entered final judgment against her. Dkt. 111.
To the extent Rose argues that she acted mistakenly and with excusable neglect in
signing the bifurcated consent agreement, the Court finds that relief under Rule 60(b)(1)
is not available. “Rule 60(b)(1) relief is unavailable to parties who simply misunderstand
the legal consequences of their deliberate acts.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452
F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A] party who simply misunderstands or fails to
predict the legal consequences of his deliberate acts cannot later, once the lesson is
learned, turn back the clock to undo those mistakes.” Id. (quoting Yapp v. Excel Corp.,
186 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999)). Because Rose does not provide any evidence that
her decision to sign the agreement was not deliberate and independent, relief is not
justified in these circumstances.
As for newly discovered evidence, the Court agrees with the SEC that the evidence
presented in Rose’s instant motions is similar to that submitted in her opposition to the
SEC’s motion for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. See dkts. 100,
106. The Court examined this evidence in detail in its December 14, 2023 order,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
incorporated here by reference, and found that “Rose has not presented any evidence of
legitimate business expenses that the SEC failed to consider.” See dkt. 108 at 9-11. The
Court is not persuaded by Rose’s argument that the SEC told her that she would be able
to present evidence to the Court, but “such evidence was not allowed.” See Mot. 3 at 2.
Rose presented evidence to the Court in her opposition to the SEC’s motion for
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. See dkt. 100. Rose was then
permitted to argue at length before the Court at the November 13, 2023 hearing, where
she told the Court that she had “additional evidence” of alleged business expenses. Dkt.
108 at 3. The Court subsequently ordered her to produce “all new documentation relating
to alleged business expenses.” Id. Rose filed thousands of pages of evidence on
November 20, 2023, see dkt. 106, which the Court thoroughly reviewed in its December
14, 2023 order. Dkt. 108 at 9-11. Accordingly, the Court finds that Rose had multiple
opportunities to present evidence and has not presented any new, relevant, and admissible
evidence in the instant motion. Therefore, relief under Rule 60(b)(2) is not warranted.
As for fraud and misrepresentations, Rose asserts that the SEC deliberately
suppressed her “exculpatory financial evidence,” “mischaracterize[ed]|” her business
operations, and “selective[ly] exclude[ed]” legitimate business expenses. Mot. 4 at2. A
plaintiff seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the prevailing litigants obtained the verdict through fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct, and (2) the conduct complained of prevented the
losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense. Casey v. Albertson's Inc, 362
F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). It also requires that the fraud “not be
discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings.” Id. Rose’s wide-
ranging assertions do not constitute evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the SEC,
and therefore, Rose has not met her burden to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3).
Finally, to the extent that Rose argues that Jarkesy invalidates the judgment against
her and warrants relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the Court finds that Jarkesy is not
material in these circumstances. To determine whether an intervening change in law
justifies relief under Rule 60(b)(6), courts consider six “well-reasoned principles,”
including (1) the nature of the change in the law; (2) the movant’s diligence; (3) the
parties’ reliance interests in the case’s finality; (4) the delay; (5) the relationship between
the original judgment and the change in the law; and (6) comity. Henson v. Fid. Nat'l
Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 445-53 (9th Cir. 2019). However, the identified factors are not
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’
Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-ASx Date April 28, 2025
Title Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company,
Inc. et al
“intended to be a rigid or exhaustive list.” Id. at 446. Here, the nature of the purported
change in the law in Jarkesy does not impact the final judgment that Rose seeks to set
aside. Jarkesy held that, when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the
Seventh Amendment of the Constitution entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Jarkesy,
603 U.S. 109, 120 (2024). In this matter, Rose waived her right to a jury trial and her
right to appeal from the entry of judgment when she signed the bifurcated consent
agreement. See dkt. 85 § 5 (“Defendant waives the right, if any, to a jury trial and to
appeal from the entry of the Judgment.”). Therefore, Jarkesy does not constitute “any
other reason that justifies relief’ under Rule 60(b)(6).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Rose is not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule
60(b).
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES Rose’s motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 : 28
Initials of Preparer OM