Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

facts to which the parties stipulated at trial; and 7) several orders of this Court which reject legal positions that EPA relied upon in its denial of the initial petition.” 8 See Docket No. 272 (“Opp’n”) at 2. In other words, the EPA is now able fully to reconsider its denial of Plaintiffs original petition, which is why this Court issued the abeyance order in the first place. The EPA’s instant motion for relief from the abeyance order is improper for several reasons. First, the motion is procedurally improper because Rule 60(b)(6) only offers relief from final judgments or orders, not from interlocutory orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any [ ] reason that justifies relief.” (emphasis added)); Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1710 (2020) (“A Rule 60(b) motion . . . attacks an already completed judgment.”); Advisory Committee’s Notes on 1946 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (“The addition of the qualifying word ‘final’ emphasizes the character of the…