Hawkins v. Chamberlain University College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Inc.
4:23-cv-01126
E.D. Mo.Nov 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Tamara Hawkins filed suit against Chamberlain University College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Inc. concerning events during her 2018-2019 enrollment.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.
- Plaintiff did not timely respond to the motion, even after receiving an extension.
- The court dismissed the case without prejudice on October 27, 2023, for failure to prosecute.
- Over a year later, Plaintiff moved to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), citing new evidence, fraud, and illness, but most referenced evidence was not attached or was of questionable relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 60(b) Motion | Illness justified late filing; new evidence | Motion filed over 1 year after order | Motion is untimely under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) |
| Grounds for Relief under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) | Illness, new evidence, and fraud merit relief | No genuine new evidence or misconduct | No exceptional or new circumstances; motion denied |
| Sufficiency of new evidence/fraud claims | Newly referenced documents support claims | Evidence is not truly new/relevant | Evidence is not new, material, or supports relief |
| Other reasons under Rule 60(b)(6) | Health issues are extraordinary circumstances | Health did not prevent prosecution | Health issues not sufficiently extraordinary |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman Consulting, LLC v. Domtar Corp., 115 F.4th 880 (8th Cir. 2024) (Rule 60(b) relief is exceptional and granted only in rare circumstances)
- Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528 (2022) (Rule 60(b)(6) only available when other parts of Rule 60(b) do not apply)
- Kennedy Bldg. Associates v. CBS Corp., 576 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2009) (One-year time limit for filing certain Rule 60(b) motions is strict)
- Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 1998) (Clear and convincing evidence required for relief under Rule 60(b)(3))
- Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996) (New evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) must likely change the result and show due diligence)