Opinion

Wine

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Jun 5, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.6%

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

MITCHELL WINE,

7 Case No. 25-cv-03336-JCS

Plaintiff,

8

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

9 RECONSIDERATION

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION

10 BOARD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 71

11 Defendants.

12

13 On June 2, 2026, almost eight months after the Court entered judgment in this case,

14 Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case to allow him to assert a challenge to a recent decision by

15 the Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB”) in an administrative action that he claims was

16 improperly bifurcated from the administrative action that was challenged in this case. Dkt. no. 69.

17 The Court denied the motion, dkt. no. 70, and Plaintiff now brings a motion for reconsideration of

18 that order. Dkt. no. 71 (“Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.

19 Under Rule 60(b), which applies after the Court has entered judgment in a case, the court

20 may grant reconsideration based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2)

21 newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the

22 court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

23 been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The last prong is

24 “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only

25 where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or

26 correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007).

27 Plaintiff has not established that reconsideration of its decision to deny his request to

] extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge this new MSPB decision, he may do so by filing a new

2 action. Furthermore, once filed, that case may, in the Court’s discretion, be related to this one if

3 || the Court determines that relating the cases is in the interest of judicial economy.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 Dated: June 5, 2026

J PH C. SPERO

8 nited States Magistrate Judge

9

10

1]

a 12

13

15

16

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.