In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: July 29, 2019 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED JORGE RODRIGUEZ, legal * representative of a minor child, M.R., * * No. 14-722V Petitioner, * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Motion for Relief from Judgment; AND HUMAN SERVICES * RCFC 60(b)(1); RCFC 60(b)(6); * Denial. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Peter M. Zirbes, Peter M. Zirbes, Esq., PC, Forest Hills, NY, for petitioner. Robert P. Coleman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 1 On March 6, 2017, I dismissed Jorge Rodriguez’s (“petitioner”) petition to seek compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 for failure to prosecute and insufficient proof. Dismissal Decision (ECF No. 46). Judgment was entered on the order dismissing the case on April 6, 2017. (ECF No. 48). On May 9, 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order (“Mot. for Relief”) (ECF No. 49). The Motion for Relief was filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”).3 Mot. for Relief at ¶ 1. For the reasons discussed below, I find that petitioner has set forth no valid 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the Order is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the Order will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 3 Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) Rule 60 is identical to FRCP 60 and the same standards apply for evaluating the rules. Dobyns v. United States, 915 F.3d 733, 737 n.1 (Fed Cir. 2019); see also Information Sys. and Networks Corp. v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals