Lakusta v. Evans et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b) -1-
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,
Debtor.
ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK H. EVANS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: 02-31521 TC
Chapter 7
Adv. Proc. No. 	03-3549 TC
Date: July 22, 2005
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Ctrm: Hon. Thomas E. Carlson
235 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA
MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b)
Plaintiff Alexis Lakusta filed and set for hearing a motion
seeking reconsideration of this court’s June 8, 2005 judgment in
the above-entitled action.
Plaintiff asserts that this court erred in determining that
the present lawsuit was barred under a prior settlement agreement,
because that settlement agreement was intended to resolve a prior
Signed and Filed: July 19, 2005
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
July 19, 2005
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 03-03549 Doc# 58 Filed: 07/19/05 Entered: 07/19/05 12:34:13 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b) -2-
lawsuit, not the present lawsuit. 	This argument is unpersuasive
because the settlement agreement, which arose out of the same
transaction at issue in the present lawsuit, contained a release of
all known and unknown claims.
Plaintiff also asserts that the form of judgment submitted by
Defendant’s counsel and later entered by the court was not properly
served upon Plaintiff and his counsel. 	This argument is
unpersuasive. 	The proposed form of judgment was served on
Plaintiff’s counsel, and the judgment entered properly reflects the
court’s decision.
The other grounds for relief raised in Plaintiff’s motion do
not represent newly discovered evidence that could not have been
presented at the original trial, fraud upon the court, or any other
ground for relief from judgment recognized in Rule 60(b).
The court need not address whether Plaintiff has standing to
bring this motion without joinder by the chapter 7 trustee.
Oral argument could not cure the deficiencies in the motion,
would not be helpful to the court, and would only increase the cost
of these proceedings.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
Case: 03-03549 Doc# 58 Filed: 07/19/05 Entered: 07/19/05 12:34:13 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Court Service List
Alexis Mager Lakusta
1259 El Camino Real, #245
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Catherine Schlomann Robertson, Esq.
Law Offices of Pahl & Gosselin
160 West Santa Clara Street, 14th Fl.
San Jose, CA 95113-1700
Charles E. Sims
P.O. Box 1247
Sonoma, CA 95476
Aron M. Oliner, Esq.
Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger
333 Market Street, 25th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2130
Case: 03-03549 Doc# 58 Filed: 07/19/05 Entered: 07/19/05 12:34:13 Page 3 of 3