Hill v. Toma

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA GLORIA HILL, 8:21CV422 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM VS. AND ORDER MATT TOMA and MOVES SMOOTH, Defendants. On December 17, 2021, the court entered judgment dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the case (Filing 10), which will be treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” “newly discovered evidence,” and “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2) & (6). Relief under the Rule’s catchall provision is available only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 777-78 (2017) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)). Plaintiff states, “I opened case in california where i live and was told that since other party lives in IOWA i must open case here.” (Filing 10.) This is not a valid reason for reopening the case. The case was dismissed because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a “federal question” for decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, while there might be diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00, as required for the exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. IT IS THEREFORE ordered that Plaintiffs motion for relief from judgment (Filing 10) is denied. Dated this 25th day of February 2022. BY THE COURT: fichiarnd Ac YA Richard G. Kspf Senior United States District Judge