Dixon v. a Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc.
692 F. App'x 664
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Karen Dixon prevailed in an arbitration against defendant A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. (ABW); Dixon moved in district court for entry of judgment on the arbitration award.
- ABW failed to respond to Dixon’s motion for judgment; the district court entered judgment for Dixon and denied ABW relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
- ABW moved for relief from judgment, arguing its failure to respond resulted from "excusable neglect" caused by technical/email issues and staff departures.
- The district court found ABW’s explanation vague, noted prior noncompliance (failure to file a court-ordered status report), and questioned the good faith of ABW’s underlying substantive arguments about the arbitrator’s rulings.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b)(1) relief; ABW appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding ABW did not show excusable neglect and that relief would prejudice Dixon and disrupt proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to respond to a motion for judgment constitutes excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) | Dixon: ABW’s failure was not excusable; judgment should stand | ABW: Technical/email problems and staff issues caused inadvertent failure to respond; this was excusable neglect | Court: Not excusable; ABW’s explanation vague and within its control; affirmed denial of relief |
| Weight of reasons for delay (Pioneer factors, focus on reason for delay) | Dixon: ABW’s reasons insufficient and within its control | ABW: Technology/staff problems prevented noticing filings | Court: Focuses on reason; ABW’s account implausible and prior failures show oversight beyond excusable neglect |
| Good faith of movant and merit of underlying defense | Dixon: ABW’s substantive arbitration challenge was baseless | ABW: Argued arbitrator exceeded interim ruling by later accepting evidence | Court: Found ABW’s characterization of arbitration record meritless and raised doubt about good faith |
| Prejudice/time impact of granting relief | Dixon: Vacating judgment would prejudice her and prolong litigation | ABW: Relief necessary to address alleged arbitration error | Court: Vacating would prejudice Dixon and further delay; district court would have managed pre‑judgment motions if timely; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (framework for "excusable neglect" in missed deadlines)
- Padilla v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 721 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2013) (Pioneer factors applied; focus on reason for delay)
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (articulation of factors for excusable neglect inquiry)
- Gomez v. City of N.Y., 805 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2015) (courts reluctant to treat attorney error as excusable neglect)
- Canfield v. Van Atta Buick/GMC Truck, Inc., 127 F.3d 248 (2d Cir. 1997) (failure to follow clear court rules usually not excusable neglect)
- ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 60(b) review standard: abuse of discretion)