637 F. App'x 786
5th Cir.2015Background
- Wallace sued his former employer, Magnolia Family Services, asserting Title VII disparate-impact race discrimination, an ADA claim, and a state tort claim under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.
- The magistrate judge dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice, conditionally dismissed the Article 2315 claim and gave Wallace a month to amend; he failed to timely amend and the Article 2315 claim was later dismissed with prejudice.
- Wallace filed late and deficient motions to reinstate the Article 2315 claim, withdrew one motion, and a subsequent motion to reinstate was denied for lack of good cause under Rule 16.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment to Magnolia on the Title VII disparate-impact claim because Wallace failed to present required statistical evidence; Wallace’s motion for reconsideration and later Rule 60 motion were denied.
- Wallace appealed multiple orders; the Fifth Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction over the whole case because the timely appeal from final judgment preserved earlier intertwined orders, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed all rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review the earlier denial of reinstating Article 2315 | Wallace challenged the denial as appealable | Magnolia argued the order was nonfinal and not immediately appealable | Appeal from final judgment preserved earlier orders; entire case reviewed |
| Denial of leave to amend/reinstate Article 2315 (motion to amend) | Wallace said scheduling/order issues justified late amendment | Magnolia said Wallace missed deadline and showed no good cause; judge has docket control | Denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse — no good cause, motion could have been timely made |
| Summary judgment on Title VII disparate-impact claim (need for statistical evidence) | Wallace argued statistical evidence not required under Garcia when alternative proof shows disparate impact | Magnolia argued plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing without statistics | De novo review; statistics ordinarily required; Wallace failed to show prima facie case; summary judgment affirmed |
| Rule 60 relief (various grounds: factual error re statistics, magistrate consent, recusal, attorney performance) | Wallace raised Rule 60(b)(1),(3),(4),(6) claims — claimed factual error, invalid consent to magistrate, recusal errors, attorney ineffectiveness | Magnolia defended the district court’s factual and legal rulings and argued consent was effective/implied; no basis for equitable relief | Abuse-of-discretion review; court did not err — Garcia inapplicable, attorney’s consent effective and implied, other claims unsupported; Rule 60 relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Askanase v. LivingWell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1993) (final-judgment rule and scope of appellate review of prior orders)
- Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2007) (final judgment preserves review of prior intertwined orders)
- Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of summary judgment in Title VII disparate-impact cases)
- Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of pro se briefs)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60 review)
- Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Texas, 97 F.3d 810 (5th Cir. 1996) (circumstances in which statistical proof may be excused in disparate-impact cases)
- United States v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 1999) (consent to magistrate by counsel of record can be effective)
- Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003) (party may impliedly consent to magistrate jurisdiction by conduct)
- Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002) (limitations on relitigating arguments under Rule 60(b)(6))
- Sanchez v. U.S. Postal Serv., 785 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1986) (standards for claims based on attorney performance)