Relief From Judgments Flashcards
Timing of Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
FRCP 60(b)(1)-(3)
Must be made within a reasonable time but not more than a year after judgment
*NO power to extend time limits
Timing of Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding Cont’d.
FRCP 60(b)(4)-(6): Reasonable time – Depends on the circumstances of each case
o Consideration of the interest in finality
o Reason for the delay
o Practical ability of the litigant to earlier learn of the grounds
o Prejudice to other parties
*NO power to extend time limits
Requirements for 60(b) Motions (except when judgment is Void)
- Moving party acted with reasonable promptness and diligence having discovered the grounds upon which motion is based.
- Moving party has a meritorious claim or defense that can be asserted if judgment set aside.
- Granting motion will not unfairly jeopardize interests of reliance on the judgment.
- Grounds advanced were not themselves previously adjudicated in the original action or in some previous effort to obtain relief from the judgment or in ones that the application could have asserted by appeal.
Relationship to Motion to Reconsider under Rule 59(e):
• Motion for reconsideration filed w/in Rule 59 filing deadline postpones notice of appeal’s effect until motion resolved. Time limit from 59(e) is now 28 days from entry of the judgment.
• Reasons expressed by movant:
• Reasons expressed by movant:
o If reconsideration seeks to alter district court’s substantive ruling, it should be considered a Rule 59 motion. Grounds include:
Intervening change in the controlling law
New evidence previously unavailable
Need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
RULE 60(a): Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights or Omissions
• “Where the court blunders in execution of a judgment, not where the court changes its mind”
• Clerical Errors include:
o Transcription and mathematical errors
o Ambiguities in a judgment
o Errors of omission, but only if the omission represented court’s intention.
- In the Matter of Estates of Hayes (1998): Court’s original order omitted statement that James was Maureen’s heir and omission was clerical.
- Compare with “Shadoan” dealing with Jury Error: More challenging to change a jury determination
RULE 60(b)(1): Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect
A. Error of Law: Two Rules
Rule 1: A motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) to correct an error of law by the district court MUST be filed BEFORE expiration of the time for appeal. (rule should not be means of evading time limitations for appeal. “Deerman v. Bd. of County Commissioners, Co. of Dona Ana” (Ct. App. 1993).
Rule 2: Where legal error could have been raised in a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it is inappropriate to try to circumvent that time limit by resorting to the longer time limit under 60(b)(1). “Dozier v. Dozier Ct.”
RULE 60(b)(1): Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect
B. Excusable Neglect
Rule: Follows federal decision in “Pioneer” which held relief is allowable in situations of attorney negligence and does not require that negligence is due to circumstances beyond the attorney’s control. Case specific analysis with a multi-factor balancing test based in equity: [RARE]
• Danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party
• Length of delay and potential impact on judicial proceedings
• Reason for the delay, including whether it was w/in reasonable control of movant
• Whether movant acted in good faith
Kinder Morgan Co. v. State Taxation and Revenue Dept.
Facts: P filed claim for tax refund. Court awarded partial summary judgment in favor of P with amount to be awarded remaining to be tried. Parties were in settlement talks. Court issued an order vacating all deadlines. New judge came on and dismissed under Rule 41(e)(2). Now, Rule 41(e)(2) allows reinstatement for good cause, but attorney failed to file. Filed a 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect.
Holding: Will allow a motion based on “Pioneer’s” multi-factor balancing test based in equity.
Recall, relief is allowable in situations of attorney negligence. Multi-factor test: DLRG.
1. Danger of Prejudice to nonmovant
2. Length of delay on judicial proceedings
3. Reason for delay
4. Good Faith on movant’s part
Scope and application of FRCP 60(b)(1) to the facts are questions of law reviewed de novo.
But keep in mind:
NM Rule 1-041E; and
NM 37-1-14
- NM Rule 1-041E Allows the court to dismiss for failure to prosecute where there has been no action for 180 Days.
- NM 37-1-14: If case is dismissed for any reason OTHER than failure to prosecute and know the SOL has run, so long as the original suit was filed within SOL, its a go (ie. it’s considered continuation of the first suit).
Response to FRCP 60(b)(1)
in “Padilla v. Griego”.
There is no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose the attorney. Citing “Link v. Wabash,” each party is deemed bound by the acts of his attorney agent.
FRCP 60(b)(1) is generally home for attorney negligence
A party will generally be bound by the actions of his or her attorney/agent. “Link v. Wabash.”
BUT under 60(b)(6), to escape consequences of her attorneys gross negligence, client must:
1. demonstrate personal her own diligence
2. diligence thwarted by the attorney.
Adams v. Para-Chem Southern, Inc
Facts: D insurer does not answer OR file notice of appearance. Court enters Default Judgment. D claims excusable neglect.
Holding:
• Insurer/Agent neglect treated the same way.
• Thus the insurer’s conduct should be considered along with the D’s in determining whether there was excusable neglect to warrant relief from default
RULE 60(b)(2): Newly Discovered Evidence
Rule: A new trial should not be granted solely on the ground that a post-trial event undercuts a prediction which formed the basis for the assessment of damages.
Fowler-Probst v. Dattilo
FRCP 60(b)(2) case
Facts: Ps sued Datillo (real estate agent) for misrepresentation. Inadequate water well on property made it worth $69,560 less. Judgment for P. One month later, sold house for more than what P paid. D. filed 60(b)(2).
District court granted new trial. Ct. App. overturned.
Holding:
• Courts generally require that the evidence must have been in existence at the time of the trial to constitute newly discovered evidence
• Courts will not reopen old cases simply because new developments rendered the basis of a previous judgment moot (e.g. expert testimony and the ailing plaintiff)
• For policy reasons in favor of finality of judgments, newly discovered evidence under the rule is limited in this way
RULE 60(b)(3): Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Other Misconduct of Adverse Party
Rule: Permits relief of both extrinsic (bribery of judge, fraudulently inducing party not to appear in court) and intrinsic (use of perjured testimony, forged evidentiary documents). Party seeking vacation of judgment must show by clear and convincing evidence that fraud occurred in the trial.
*BUT don’t have to show that the outcome would be different, just that it MAY have affected outcome.
FRCP 60(b)(3): INTENT
Most jurisdictions require intent under 60(d)(3) for fraud on the court, but not 60(b)(3).
*BUT 10th Circuit does require proof of intent under both.
