Isabelle Bichindaritz v. University of Washington
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Isabelle Bichindaritz appeals the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) motion for relief from judgment in her Title VII action against the University of Washington. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing for abuse- of discretion, see United States v. Chapman, 642 F.3d 1236 , 1240 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2011), we affirm.
1. Bichindaritz argues that the district court failed to apply full faith and credit to a Washington state trial court’s decision finding that the University had violated Washington’s Public Record Act (“PRA”), Wash. Rev.Code §§ 42.56.0001-.904, by failing to produce relevant documents to Bichindaritz in a timely manner. Bichin-daritz contends that the state trial court’s PRA decision necessitates a finding of fraud on the federal court in these unrelated proceedings. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 , 64 S.Ct. 997 , 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944) (holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for “after-discovered fraud”). However, on February 17, 2015, while this appeal was pending, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial…