Jarvis v. Parker
13 F. Supp. 3d 74
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit March 18, 2013; defendants Brown and Parker moved to dismiss in mid‑April 2013.
- Plaintiffs failed to file timely oppositions and did not seek extensions as required by the Court’s standing order and Local Rules.
- Court dismissed Brown’s claims as conceded and later dismissed the entire action without prejudice after Plaintiffs withdrew a reconsideration motion.
- Plaintiffs explained late filings by counsel’s influenza and a mistaken belief that they had 21 days to respond rather than the 17 days under the Local and Federal Rules.
- Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) for relief from the dismissal; defendants opposed and the motion was fully briefed.
- The Court denied relief, concluding counsel’s illness and rule‑mistake did not constitute excusable neglect or the extraordinary circumstances required for 60(b)(6). Plaintiffs may refile because dismissal was without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s late filing/ failure to seek extension is excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) | Counsel was incapacitated by influenza and mistakenly believed he had 21 days to respond | Missed deadlines were counsel’s fault; ignorance of Local Rules is not excusable | Denied — not excusable neglect; attorneys are presumed to know the rules and mistake/ignorance ordinarily fails Pioneer test |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for the late filing | Alternative basis: equitable relief because of illness and mistake | 60(b)(6) is for extraordinary circumstances, not garden‑variety attorney error | Denied — no extraordinary circumstances shown; plaintiff may not relitigate routine 60(b)(1) grounds under 60(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (sets factors for excusable neglect inquiry)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief is limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances to reopen judgment)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(6) should be sparingly used; cannot rescue poor strategic choices)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (Rule 60(b)(6) may not be premised on grounds covered by clauses (b)(1)–(b)(5))