Walker v. Charter Commc'ns LLC

• Decision Date: 24 August 2022
• Docket Number: 3:15-CV-00556-RCJ-CBC
• Parties: TERRANCE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

TERRANCE WALKER, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant.

No. 3:15-CV-00556-RCJ-CBC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 24, 2022

ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge.

Plaintiff, moving pro se, seeks relief from the judgments (ECF Nos. 139 and 257) entered against him in this case. Plaintiff first points to an alleged intervening change in the law. (ECF No. 314.) He then argues that Defendant obtained judgment through fraud. (ECF No. 315.) For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to have this case reopened for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3, 6). Defendant opposes these motions, and Plaintiff has filed replies in support. (ECF Nos. 316-19.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies both motions.^[1]

1

I. ECF No. 314

Plaintiff contends that the Ninth Circuit opinion, BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 20 F.4th 1231 (9th Cir. 2021), constitutes an intervening change in the law that entitles Plaintiff to a new trial. In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that where a district court commits a “substantive jury-instruction error,” then there is a presumption that the error is prejudicial. Id. at 1244. Nonetheless, “for the ordinary civil appeal, ‘the party seeking reversal' bears the burden of persuasion.” Id. at 1243 (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 410 (2009)).

Rule 60(b)(6) allows a court to grant relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Under “extraordinary circumstances,” an intervening change in law may justify such relief. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1132 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff relies on BladeRoom Grp. to argue that this Court previously erred when it denied his motion for a new trial (ECF No. 267). In that previous motion, Plaintiff contended that this Court committed “erroneous evidentiary rulings and erroneous jury instructions” regarding these evidentiary rulings. (ECF No. 267 at 2.) The Court relied upon Shinseki and denied the motion for a new trial, finding that even if this Court did so err, Plaintiff had not shown prejudice.^[2] Plaintiff contends that, in light of BladeRoom Grp., this Court's reliance on Shinseki was misplaced. This is a mistake on Plaintiff's part as BladeRoom Grp. affirms that this Court correctly placed the burden on Plaintiff to show prejudice as he raised only alleged evidentiary errors-not substantive issues. There is thus no intervening change in law, so the Court denies Plaintiff's first...