West v. PF Changs China Bistro

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Alexander Harrison West,
Plaintiff,
v.
PF Changs China Bistro,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
AND MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Case No. 1:25-cv-00150-DBP
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
On April 16, 2026, the court entered a memorandum decision and order dismissing this
case.1 Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, and Motion to Reopen Case.2 In support
Plaintiff includes a Third Amended Complaint arguing it has merit. The court disagrees and
denies the motions as set forth herein.
Plaintiff files his motions on a form citing Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). This
Rule allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding due to
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”.3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(1) uses the same “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” standard. This
type of relief is “extraordinary because it sacrifices the preservation of finality in order to ensure
justice is ‘done in light of all the facts.’”4
1 Memorandum Decision and Order dated April 16, 2026, ECF No. 47.
2 ECF No. 49, ECF No. 50.
3 Utah Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
4 Valentine v. Auto-Owners Ins., No. 2:22-CV-00815-RJS-CMR, 2024 WL 4068874, at *3 (D. Utah Sept. 5, 2024)
(quoting Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[Rule 60(b)(1)] is an extraordinary procedure
which seeks to strike a delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the desire to preserve the finality of
judgments and the incessant command of the court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.”))
(quotation modified). See also Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 577 (10th Cir. 1996) (A mistake
occurs “(1) [when] a party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without
Case 1:25-cv-00150-DBP Document 52 Filed 04/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
Plaintiff asserts “I am asking the court to reinstate this lawsuit as this lawsuit has plenty
of merit.”5 The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments and finds Plaintiff fails to meet the
required standards under Rule 60. There is no “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect” warranting reopening this case. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does
not provide a basis to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate6 and Motion to Reopen Case7 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22 April 2026.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
authority from a party, or (2) where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or
order.”).
5 Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Civil Case at 2, ECF No. 49.
6 ECF No. 49.
7 ECF No. 50.
Case 1:25-cv-00150-DBP Document 52 Filed 04/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2