Gonzalez-Hassan v. Atlanta Harm Reduction Coalition, Inc.
1:23-cv-02022
| N.D. Ga. | Mar 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Angela M. Gonzalez-Hassan sued her former employer, Atlanta Harm Reduction Coalition, Inc. (AHRC), alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and Georgia law.
- After receiving her EEOC Right to Sue letter, Gonzalez-Hassan filed her claim in state court, which defendant then removed to federal court.
- AHRC answered, and a month later, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (ending the case permanently).
- Over a year later, Gonzalez-Hassan (now pro se) filed a motion to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), citing ineffective assistance by her former counsel and excusable neglect.
- Plaintiff alleged her attorney gave inadequate advice, failed to investigate, pressured her to dismiss with prejudice, and may have had an undisclosed conflict or collusion with defense counsel.
- The court evaluated the timeliness and sufficiency of these claims under the standards of Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(1)—Attorney Negligence | Former counsel was ineffective and pressured dismissal without explanation | Error of counsel must be considered under (b)(1) and motion is untimely | Relief must be under (b)(1); motion was untimely (filed over one year after dismissal) |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)—Exceptional Case | Cites counsel's gross misconduct and potential collusion | No exceptional circumstances or gross neglect alleged | No extraordinary circumstances shown; ordinary error does not suffice for (b)(6) |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) or (b)(3) | Newly discovered evidence or misconduct by counsel | These arguments are restatements of (b)(1), still untimely | Untimely under the one-year limit applicable to these subsections |
| Conflict/Collusion between Counsel | Counsel's "familiarity" with opposing counsel suggests improper conduct | No evidence of actual conflict, just professional relationship | No evidence of ethically significant conflict; mere familiarity isn't misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Solaroll Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio–Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130 (11th Cir. 1986) (attorney error claims fit under Rule 60(b)(1), which is exclusive of 60(b)(6))
- Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111 (11th Cir. 1993) (relief under 60(b)(6) requires exceptional circumstances and is mutually exclusive with 60(b)(1))
- Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2000) (extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)