2:20-cv-00147
E.D. Wash.
Mar 11, 2025

OKANOGAN HIGHLANDS ALLIANCE AND STATE OF WASHINGTON v. CROWN RESOURCES CORPORATION AND KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC.

No. 2:20-CV-00147-MKD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

March 11, 2025

ECF No. 218

ORDER DENYING STATE OF WASHINGTON‘S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

ECF No. 217

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

Notes

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.