John Doe v.
681 F. App'x 106
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Quebec filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Doe; the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition and later found Quebec acted in bad faith after Quebec did not appear at a hearing.
- Quebec missed the deadline to appeal the bad-faith finding and its motion for an extension was denied by the Bankruptcy Court on August 13, 2015.
- Quebec appealed the denial of the extension to the District Court on August 25, 2015 and was ordered to file a designation of the Bankruptcy Court record by September 8; Quebec failed to file the designation.
- The District Court dismissed the appeal and remanded to Bankruptcy Court on September 30, 2015; Quebec filed a motion for post-judgment relief on October 20, 2015 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b), claiming excusable neglect due to calendaring error.
- The District Court denied the October 20 motion on December 1, 2015 “as untimely,” and later denied Quebec’s Rule 59(e) motion filed December 7, 2015; Quebec appealed the denial of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quebec’s October 20 Rule 59(e) motion was timely | 59(e) permits 28 days, so motion filed 20 days after judgment was timely | Bankruptcy Rules govern appeals from bankruptcy courts and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 limits Rule 59(e) motions to 14 days | Court: Rule 59(e) motion untimely because Bankruptcy Rule 9023 gives 14-day deadline |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a “reasonable time” | October 20 Rule 60(b) filing was timely given circumstances (excusable neglect) | Motion was untimely; District Court dismissed without analysis | Court: District Court erred by failing to analyze whether Rule 60(b) was within a reasonable time; vacated and remanded for that analysis |
| Whether District Court properly denied Rule 60(b) relief on the merits for excusable neglect | Quebec: missed designation deadline due to attorney calendaring mistake; Pioneer factors favor relief | District Court: denied as untimely without applying Pioneer factors | Court: Did not decide merits; instructed District Court to apply Pioneer factors and explain its reasoning on remand |
| Whether appellate review standard was correctly applied | Quebec argued District Court misapplied timeliness law | Appellee defended District Court’s summary denial | Court: Standard of review is abuse of discretion for Rule 59/60 denials; plenary review for legal questions; remanded for proper discretionary analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vehicle Carrier Servs. Antitrust Litig., 846 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Rule 59(e)/60(b) motions)
- Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, 818 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016) (Bankruptcy Rules govern procedure on appeals from bankruptcy court)
- VFB LLC v. Campbell Soup Co., 482 F.3d 624 (3d Cir. 2007) (application of bankruptcy rules in district-court review)
- Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 22 F.3d 1228 (3d Cir. 1994) (Bankruptcy Rules control procedure in bankruptcy appeals)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (grounds for relief under Rule 59(e))
- George Harms Constr. Co. v. Chao, 371 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2004) (excusable neglect is an equitable determination; discusses Pioneer factors)
- Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 1995) (courts consider all relevant circumstances in excusable-neglect analysis)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (four nonexclusive factors for excusable neglect)
- In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 235 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (district courts must explain denial of Rule 60(b) motions and apply Pioneer factors)
- Delzona Corp. v. Sacks, 265 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1959) (what constitutes a reasonable time under Rule 60(b) depends on facts)
- Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1981) (factors for assessing reasonable time under Rule 60(b))