# Wine

> District Court, N.D. California · June 5, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379801

## Case

- **Full name:** Mitchell Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** June 5, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379801

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379801. Public record. Not legal advice.