Olupitan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARTINA O. OLUPITAN, MHA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-349-G
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. )
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE )
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Martina O. Olupitan’s Rule 60(b)(3) Motion for
Relief (Doc. No. 63). Defendants1 have responded in opposition (Doc. No. 64) and
Plaintiff has replied (Doc. No. 66).
I. Background
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, commenced this action in April 2024, bringing federal
and state-law claims against nine defendants. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Defendants moved
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. See Doc. No. 25. On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Disqualify (Doc. No. 21) seeking to have certain of the defendants’ counsel disqualified
and removed from the case. Following briefing, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request. See
Olupitan v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., No. CIV-24-349-G, 2025 WL
1 Defendants are: State of Oklahoma ex rel. The Board of Regents of the University of
Oklahoma; Michael J. Smith, PharmD; Gary Raskob, PhD; Valerie Williams, PhD; Laura
Stuemky, MD; Ashley Cheyney, PhD; Andrei Belousov, PhD; Katherine O’Neal, PharmD;
and Lori Klimkowski.
Case 5:24-cv-00349-G Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4

2
978167 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2025). The Court thereafter granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state-law claims, and dismissed this matter without prejudice. See Order of Apr.
1, 2025 (Doc. No. 49); J. (Doc. No. 51).
II. Discussion
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks relief from the Court’s denial of her Motion to Disqualify
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“Rule 60(b) allows a court to ‘relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding,’ for certain enumerated reasons.” Waetzig v. Halliburton
Energy Servs., Inc., 145 F.4th 1279, 1282 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
“[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.” Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 60(b)(3) authorizes relief from a final judgment or order “for . . . fraud . . . ,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). A party
relying on Rule 60(b)(3) “must, by adequate proof,” “show clear and convincing proof of
fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct.” Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d
1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Moreover, the challenged
behavior must substantially have interfered with the aggrieved party’s ability fully and
fairly to prepare for and proceed at trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
As support for her request, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counsel engaged in
“repeat unlawful misconduct” with respect to counsel’s dealings with Plaintiff both prior
Case 5:24-cv-00349-G Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4

3
to and during this litigation. Pl.’s R. 60(b)(3) Mot. Relief at 2-12; see also Pl.’s Reply at
2-5.
The alleged improper acts cited by Plaintiff as fraud between the parties, however,
were already largely considered by the Court and rejected as a basis to disqualify
Defendants’ counsel. See Olupitan, 2025 WL 978167, at *2-4; see also 11 Federal
Practice and Procedure (Wright & Miller) § 2860 (3d ed.) (explaining that a Rule 60(b)(3)
motion “will be denied if it is merely an attempt to relitigate the case”). Further, even
liberally construed, Plaintiff fails to provide clear and convincing evidence that any such
acts by Defendants constitute fraud on the Court or “show[] a defilement of the judicial
process” such that “the judicial machinery c[ould] not perform in the usual manner its
impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Wilkin v. Sunbeam
Corp., 466 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1972) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 60(b)(3) “is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are
factually incorrect.” Zurich N. Am., 426 F.3d at 1290 (internal quotation marks omitted).
For all these reasons, Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish the requisite fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by Defendants to be entitled to relief under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).
CONCLUSION
As outlined herein, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) Motion for Relief (Doc. No. 63) is
DENIED.
Plaintiff’s previous motion (Doc. No. 61) and Motion for Immediate Judicial Action
(Doc. Nos. 73) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 5:24-cv-00349-G Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00349-G Document 77 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4