1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 22-cv-00887-HSG

DREVALEVA,

8 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO Plaintiff, VACATE 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111, 112 10 DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On October 26, 2022, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata, 14 dismissed the complaint, and declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Dkt. Nos. 100, 102. Plaintiff 15 appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decision. Drevaleva v. McDonough, No. 23- 16 15308, 2024 WL 1342670, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2024). More than a year later, Plaintiff filed 17 three motions to vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Dkt. Nos. 110, 111, 112. Plaintiff’s motions 18 are convoluted, but they broadly argue that there was no valid final judgment that could trigger 19 claim preclusion, and there were various other procedural defects. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 110 at 18; 20 Dkt. No. 112 at 7. 21 Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall provision” that “has been used sparingly as an equitable 22 remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances 23 prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” United 24 States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790, 797 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “A motion under 25 Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). And, under 26 Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party seeking reconsideration under Rule 60(b) must file a motion for 27 leave to file a motion for reconsideration, which must specifically show the emergence or 1 dispositive legal arguments previously presented. 2 Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 60 (and Civil Local Rule 7-9). Plaintiff has not complied with the procedural requirements of 4 || these rules, and she has not demonstrated anything close to extraordinary circumstances. She 5 primarily repeats the same arguments that she has previously presented and that this Court and the 6 || Ninth Circuit have rejected. See Am. Ironworkers & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 7 || F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration 8 || under Rule 60(b) where the movants “simply reargued their case and offered no basis for 9 || withdrawal of the [order]”). The Court reemphasizes that this case is closed, and all pending 10 || motions are DENIED. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. 11 12

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: 11/21/2025

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

= 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28