Gomez v. City of New York
805 F.3d 419
2d Cir.2015Background
- Manuel Gomez, a former NYPD officer, sued the City alleging constitutional and related claims stemming from an August 27, 2009 arrest and related events; he initially proceeded pro se and later retained attorney Trevor A. Reid.
- On April 11, 2013, Reid signed a stipulation dismissing with prejudice substantially all of Gomez’s § 1983 and related claims; the district court so‑ordered the stipulation that same day.
- Gomez, who had recently returned from deployment, filed a pro se motion six days later asserting Reid signed the stipulation without his knowledge or consent and asked to withdraw counsel; he attached a detailed letter describing his lack of awareness and understanding of the proceedings.
- The district court denied Gomez’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that parties are bound by their lawyer‑agents, that Gomez offered no proof he was overseas when the stipulation was signed, and that Gomez attended an April 12 conference and did not object there.
- Gomez retained new counsel and later filed amended complaints limited to employment claims; Gomez appealed only the district court’s denial of relief from the stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying relief from a stipulation of dismissal signed by plaintiff’s attorney without an evidentiary hearing | Gomez argued Reid lacked authority to dismiss his claims and he promptly moved pro se to vacate the stipulation | City argued party is bound by acts of counsel and offered no opposition below; district court emphasized imputation of attorney acts | The court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing because Gomez raised a colorable factual dispute about counsel’s authority |
| Whether attorney error or negligence is a sufficient basis for Rule 60 relief in this context | Gomez contended dismissal was unauthorized, not mere negligence | City/district court treated counsel’s act as attributable negligence and denied relief | The court clarified presumption that counsel has settlement authority is rebuttable; attorney negligence does not end inquiry when client disputes authorization |
| Whether Gomez’s silence at a court conference precludes relief | City/district court relied on Gomez’s presence and lack of contemporaneous objection | Gomez explained he did not understand the discussion and promptly sought relief afterward | The court found Gomez’s silence ambiguous and his prompt post‑conference steps supported remand for hearing |
| Whether the district court could require documentary proof (e.g., deployment records) before holding a hearing | District court faulted Gomez for not producing evidence he was recently deployed | Gomez’s filings did not assert he was deployed at the time of stipulation, only that he had recently returned | The court held the district court erred to rely on a factual point Gomez did not make and remanded for evidentiary development |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (rule that parties are generally bound by acts of their lawyer-agent)
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (attorney error relief typically sought under Rule 60(b))
- United States v. Cirami, 535 F.2d 736 (discussing attorney error and limits on relief)
- United States v. Cirami, 563 F.2d 26 (recognizing mental illness/disappearance of counsel as basis for remand and evidentiary hearing)
- Pereira v. Sonia Holdings Ltd. (In re Artha Mgmt.), 91 F.3d 326 (settlement authority rests with client; presumption of counsel authority is rebuttable)
- Vindigni v. Meyer, 441 F.2d 376 (attorney disappearance can warrant Rule 60 relief and remand for hearing)
- Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d 77 (where client and former attorney dispute authority, courts generally require an evidentiary hearing)
- Assocs. Disc. Corp. v. Goldman, 524 F.2d 1051 (same; client manifestations of nonconsent around entry of judgment require scrutiny)