Jane Doe is seeking to resurrect a civil lawsuit against Jason A. Smith and other defendants after the parties previously agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. Doe filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to set aside the stipulated dismissal and simultaneously requested permission to file an application for emergency relief through a temporary restraining order.
Judge Pitts ruled that while the court lacks jurisdiction to grant emergency relief in a dismissed case, it can still allow the filing of such applications. 'Because the dismissal of this action under Rule 41 divested the Court of jurisdiction, the Court lacks authority to rule on a request for emergency relief until and unless the judgment is reopened by the granting of a Rule 60 motion,' Pitts wrote, citing Ninth Circuit precedent.
The judge emphasized the procedural bind created by the dismissal, noting that as the Supreme Court held in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 'before the … Court could rule on' a TRO application, the Court would 'first need[] to reopen [t]his case.' However, Pitts clarified that 'the Court's lack of jurisdiction to rule on a TRO application before resolution of the Rule 60 motion does not bar the filing (or briefing) of such an application.'
The case had been scheduled for a Rule 60 motion hearing on May 7, 2026, and Judge Pitts had previously denied Doe's request to expedite both the hearing date and briefing schedule. Doe then filed multiple administrative motions, including the request for leave to file the TRO application that prompted Tuesday's order.
The court granted Doe's request while requiring defendants to respond to any TRO application within 14 days of filing. Judge Pitts made clear that any emergency relief would be contingent on first succeeding on the motion to reopen the case, stating that the court 'shall rule on the TRO application only if it grants Doe's Rule 60(b) motion.'
Recognizing what he termed 'exigent circumstances underlying Doe's request for emergency relief,' Judge Pitts reconsidered his earlier ruling and advanced the hearing date. 'The Court also sua sponte reconsiders its denial of Doe's request to advance the date of the motion hearing,' Pitts wrote, moving the hearing up nine days to April 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
The judge directed that counsel for all parties should be prepared to address both the Rule 60(b) motion and Doe's TRO application at the hearing, effectively consolidating the proceedings. The court also indicated it would address Doe's other pending administrative motions concerning discovery and live testimony after defendants' response deadlines pass.