United States District Court, D. Columbia
NURSAT I. AYGEN, Plaintiff,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant
I. AYGEN, Plaintiff, Pro se, Arlington, VA.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant: Alex
Karpinski, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL/DC,
LAMBERTH, United States District Judge.
the Court are plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
plaintiff's motion for sanctions. For the following
reasons and after consideration of the parties' briefing
and relevant legal standards, plaintiff's motions for
reconsideration and sanctions will be DENIED.
2010, the plaintiff, Ms. Nursat Aygen, brought an action
pro se against District of Columbia Public Schools
(" District" ) for violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act (" FMLA" ), 29 U.S.C. §
2601. This Court granted the District's
motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 37(d) and 41(b) in March 2015 due to Ms.
Aygen's continued failure to appear for her own
deposition. ECF No. 74.
Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that Ms. Aygen had
offered no viable defense for her failure to appear for at
least four depositions. Id. at 4. Rather, her
response to the defendant's motion to dismiss focused
entirely on the scheduling of the deposition of a witness,
Ms. Talley-Melvin. Id. The Court explicitly stated
that the scheduling of Ms. Talley-Melvin's deposition
" is entirely irrelevant to Ms. Aygen's failure to
appear for her own deposition." Id. The Court
also directly rejected the plaintiff's opinion that her
deposition could not occur until after Ms.
Talley-Melvin's deposition was completed. Id. at
the Court determined that Ms. Aygen's " continued
requests for extensions of time and continued refusal to
attend her own depositions ha[d] hampered the District's
ability to move forward with the case" and dismissed her
case with prejudice. Id.
have discretion to grant relief from final judgments for five
specific reasons under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(1)-(5):(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; and (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released or discharged; the judgment is based on
an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or
applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable.
order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(3), the moving party
must show that (1) the other party engaged in fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct; and (2) this misconduct
prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting
Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 1188, 1193, 362
U.S.App.D.C. 363 (D.C. ...