Green v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (Afl-Cio)
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102017
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Green, proceeding pro se, moves for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) for alleged fraud by AFL-CIO and supervisor during litigation.
- Plaintiff previously settled arbitration in October 2005, receiving $10,365 and releasing AFL-CIO and employees from all claims related to his employment.
- Settlement stated it was the full and complete settlement of all claims under statutory or common law related to his separation or the CBA.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding plaintiff validly waived claims under the settlement; circuit subsequently affirmed.
- Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion asserts fraud/false representations but the court finds no evidence and concludes such fraud did not prevent fair presentation of his case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved fraud under Rule 60(b)(3). | Green argues defendants lied and committed fraud to influence the judgment. | AFL-CIO/AFL contends there is no evidence of fraud; motion attempts to relitigate. | Denied; no evidence of fraud presented. |
| Whether alleged fraud prevented full and fair presentation of the case. | Fraud allegedly interfered with presenting his claims. | No showing that fraud hindered fair adjudication. | Denied; plaintiff failed to show interference with fair presentation. |
| Whether the 2005 settlement waives the underlying claims and precludes Rule 60(b)(3) relief. | Settlement does not bar reconsideration of the court's prior rulings. | Settlement validly waives all claims arising from employment and related disputes. | Not necessary to reconsider; but relief denied on merits for lack of fraud evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (preference for timely, equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and related standards)
- Lepkowski v. Department of the Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (describes Rule 60(b) relief standards and prerequisites)
- Mayfair Extension, Inc. v. Magee, 241 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (fraud or misrepresentation grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(3))
- Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 150 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1993) (fraud must be proven and must have affected presentation of the case)
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (prospective relief considerations under Rule 60(b))