1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHKAN RAJAEE, Case No.: 24-cv-1-RSH-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. RULE 60 MOTION

14 TYLER BRANDON DAVIS, et al., [ECF Nos. 164, 172] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before this Court is a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 60, filed by plaintiff Askhan Rajaee. ECF No. 164. As set forth below, the Court 20 denies the motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against 41 23 named defendants and Does 1 through 99. ECF No. 1. The Complaint’s seventeen claims 24 focused on a dispute between Plaintiff and defendant Tyler Davis, a former business 25 partner at TopDevz, LLC (“TopDevz”), over ownership of TopDevz. Plaintiff alleged that 26 the dispute resulted in an erroneous arbitration award against him, which was then 27 confirmed by a judgment of the California Superior Court, all as a result of fraud committed 1 by Defendants. Plaintiff asked this Court to vacate the state court’s judgment affirming the 2 arbitration award; to declare that the judgment is “void and unenforceable”; and to enjoin 3 Defendants from collecting on or enforcing the judgment. ECF No. 1 at 74-75. Plaintiff 4 also sought damages. Id. at 75. 5 On April 11, 2024, upon motions by Defendants, the Court dismissed the Complaint 6 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 7 138. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was a de facto appeal of the judgment 8 of the Superior Court. Id. at 8-11. This Court entered a judgment of dismissal on April 12, 9 2024. ECF No. 139. Plaintiff did not appeal. 10 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Rule 60 motion. ECF No. 164. Plaintiff’s 11 motion argues that the Superior Court judgment against him was “void and procured by 12 fraud,” and that by extension this Court’s order of dismissal pursuant to Rooker-Feldman 13 is also void. Id. at 7. The motion is fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 165-70. 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff’s motion invokes Rule 60(b)(4), (b)(6), and (d)(3). ECF No. 164 at 2. Those 16 portions of Rule 60 provide: 17 (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or 18 its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for 19 the following reasons:

20 . . . . 21 (4) the judgment is void; [or] 22

23 . . . .

24 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 25 (d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court's 26 power to: 27 1 (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. ; The Court previously dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 4 No. 138. Plaintiff's motion does not address the analysis in the Court’s order, but rather ° argues—just as he did in opposing the motion to dismiss—that the Superior Court 6 judgment was void and the product of fraud. Rule 60 is a rule of procedure, but does not confer subject matter jurisdiction that is otherwise lacking. See Holder v. Simon,

App’x 669, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The district court properly dismissed [the] complaint sua 9 sponte because Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a 10 claim for relief from a state court judgment.”); Jn re Reyes, No. EC-18-1229-BSL,

, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2019) (“The law is quite clear that Civil Rule 60(b) 12 applies to relief from judgment of a federal court; it does not provide a basis for subject 13 matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment.”’) (collecting cases); M4 Meyer v. Litzenberg, No. C 16-3010 WHA,

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2016) 15 (“[N]o part of Rule 60 confers subject-matter jurisdiction.”). The Court has no more subject 16 matter jurisdiction now that it did at the time it dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit.! M7 Hr. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 164] is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 20 fekut Cle Dated: October 31, 2025 21 Hon. Robert S. Huie » United States District Judge 23 24 ||! Plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike various documents filed by defendants and to issue an order to show cause regarding sanctions. ECF Nos. 172-74. The motion recites 5 a list of grievances and is without merit. Additionally, the Court did not rely on the filings 26 Plaintiff seeks to strike. The motion appears to be an attempt to harass □□□□□□□□□□ opponents, in a case in which judgment was entered over a year and a half ago. The Court 7 || DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 28