Order | Filed: June 05, 2025
| Entered: June 05, 2025
Gillich v. Connecticut Superior Court et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Vacate Order on Motion for Writ of Mandamus
ORDER denying 69 Motion to Vacate, 71 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. Plaintiff filed a seventy-five page motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for alleged fraud. This motion must be denied based on deficiencies with procedure and the merits.
First, as a preliminary matter, the motion does not comply with the page limits prescribed by the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Under Local Rule 7, memoranda supporting or opposing a motion shall be no more than forty pages. Local Rule 7(a)(5) provides that "[e]xcept by order of the Court, memoranda shall be double-spaced (except headings, footnotes, and block quotes) and shall be no more than forty (40) 8 1/2" by 11" printed pages, exclusive of pages containing a table of contents, table of statutes, rules or the like." Therefore, Plaintiff's seventy-five page motion at ECF No. 69 is denied for being non-compliant with the Local Rules.
Second, Plaintiff's motion to vacate must also be denied on the merits. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's request as a motion to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which is "generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001). The decision on whether to grant a party's Rule 60(b) motion is committed to the "sound discretion" of a court, Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012), and "the burden of proof is on the party seeking relief." Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d at 391. Plaintiff fails to show any extraordinary circumstances that warrant vacating the order dismissing this case. Plaintiff's grounds for the Rule 60 motion, which "essentially boil down to a claim that the decision was wrong," are not sufficiently extraordinary to justify reopening a closed case. United Airlines, Inc. v. Brien, 588 F.3d 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, this case remains closed and no further motions for reconsideration shall be considered. The motion for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.
Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 6/5/2025. (Dao, J)