Diviacchi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 VALERIANO DIVIACCHI, Case No. 24-cv-07827-EMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION TO VACATE

BRANDON STALLINGS, et al., Docket Nos. 37, 39 Defendants.

11 12 13 Previously, the Court entered a final judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants. See Docket No. 29 (order). Plaintiff subsequently filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment which the Court denied. See Docket No. 36 (order). Plaintiff intends to appeal the Court’s decisions but, in the meantime, has now filed a motion to vacate the judgment and/or related orders pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and (6). Under these provisions, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order if “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable” or there is “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), (6). “Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) allow for vacatur if the equities so demand.” Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Techs., Inc., No.…