Case Information
*0 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. M C Mar 11, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OKANOGAN HIGHLANDS ALLIANCE AND STATE OF No. 2:20-CV-00147-MKD
WASHINGTON, ORDER DENYING STATE OF Plaintiffs, WASHINGTON’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
v. ECF No. 217
CROWN RESOURCES
CORPORATION AND KINROSS
GOLD U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff State of Washington’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. ECF No. 217. Consistent with the Court’s Sixth Bench Trial
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 190 at 11, the Court did not require Defendants to
respond. The Court has reviewed the motion and record and is fully informed. For
the reasons explained below, the Court denies the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) “is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment.” United States v. State of Wash. , 98 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation and quotations omitted). Among other reasons, the rule “allows for
relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” based on “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher
Int’l, Inc. , 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Hanson v. Shubert , 968 F.3d
1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
DISCUSSION The State of Washington moves for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(1). The Court concludes relief is unwarranted. The State’s arguments
made in support of its motion largely mirror the arguments it made opposing
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings—arguments the Court has
found unsupported by statute and case law. Compare ECF No. 206 at 5-6, 9-10,
15-16, 18-20 and ECF No. 211 at 20-22, 34-35, with ECF No. 214 at 6, 9-11. The
State’s remaining arguments similarly are without merit. [1] The Court thus declines
to set aside its prior order or modify the judgment. See Straw v. Bowen , 866 F.2d
1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting a movant’s burden of “show[ing] that the
district court committed a specific error”) (citing Thompson v. Housing Authority
of the City of Los Angeles , 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986)).
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court denies the State’s motion for relief from judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The State of Washington’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 217 , is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this
Order and provide copies to the parties.
DATED March 11, 2025.
s/Mary K. Dimke
MARY K. DIMKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] Contrary to its passing reference to “black letter law,” ECF No. 214 at 9, Washington failed to cite any Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent that would squarely foreclose the outcome of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.