Brown v. New Vision Hotels Two, LLC
1:23-cv-02226
| D. Colo. | Aug 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Martel Sharod Brown sought relief from a final judgment that granted summary judgment to Defendant New Vision Hotels Two, LLC.
- Brown filed his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (2), claiming newly discovered medical evidence and his limited legal knowledge as grounds for relief.
- The original final judgment was entered May 27, 2025; Brown filed his Rule 60(b) motion 52 days later.
- Brown did not directly contest the court’s substantive ruling, but rather asked the court to vacate and re-enter judgment so he could file a timely appeal.
- The court considered whether the motion could be granted under Rule 60(b)(6) due to alleged extraordinary circumstances but found none present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(1) due to mistake or excusable neglect | Brown argued limited legal knowledge excused his prior failures | Defendant argued ignorance of law and procedural mistakes are insufficient | Denied; ignorance of the law is not excusable neglect |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence | Brown cited an April 2025 medical diagnosis as new evidence | Defendant argued the evidence was not relevant or timely for relief | Denied; no legal grounds shown for newly discovered evidence relief |
| Extension of time to appeal via Rule 60(b)(6) | Brown sought to vacate and re-enter judgment to gain more time to appeal | Defendant argued procedural deadlines are jurisdictional and cannot be extended absent extraordinary circumstances | Denied; no extraordinary circumstances or equitable basis found |
| Meritorious claim requirement for Rule 60(b)(1) relief | Brown did not present argument on merits of underlying claim | Defendant noted failure to show claim merits precludes relief | Denied; failure to show claim was meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) (clarifies high standard for Rule 60(b) relief and evidentiary requirements)
- Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as others)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Doe, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief not available absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) (Rule 60(b) relief requires showing of extraordinary or compelling circumstances)