531 F. App'x 118
2d Cir.2013Background
- This appeal concerns Colucci’s Rule 60(b) relief from final judgment in a False Claims Act case against Beth Israel Medical Center et al. and Ernst & Young.
- Colucci moved for relief after the district court denied her amended-complaint dismissal and related rulings, seeking to reopen the judgment.
- The district court found Colucci’s Rule 60(b) motion untimely under the one-year deadline and Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)’s memorandum requirement.
- Colucci attempted to frame a 60(b)(2) claim as 60(b)(6) to bypass the deadline, arguing newly discovered evidence involving hospital billing.
- The court denied relief on the merits and affirmed, concluding the motion was untimely and the evidence did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion | Colucci argues 60(b)(2)/(6) should be entertained despite timing | Defendants contend the one-year deadline is absolute and not met | Motion untimely under 60(c)(1) and Local Rule 7.1(a) |
| Motion as 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(2) grounds | Argues legal error or newly discovered evidence justifies relief | No reversible legal error and evidence not newly discovered timely | No relief on the merits under 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(2) |
| Effect of framing 60(b)(2) as 60(b)(6) | Seeks flexibility of 60(b)(6) for extraordinary relief | 60(b)(6) is umbrella and should be read with other subsections | Properly construed as 60(b)(2) claim and barred by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b))
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b))
- Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ., 866 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1989) (timeliness and discretion in Rule 60(b) motions)
- Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (one-year absolute deadline for Rule 60(b) motions)
- PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1983) (interpretation of Rule 60(b) with other sections; purpose of time limits)
- Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 463 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2006) (prohibition on piecemeal filings to evade Rule 60(b) timing)
- In re 310 Associates, 346 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2003) (deadline mechanics for Rule 60(b) motions)
- Schildhaus v. Moe, 335 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1964) (timeline approach for post-judgment relief)