Keane v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 874 F.3d 763

Background

Keane sued HSBC, Nationstar, and MERS in Massachusetts state court (Dec 2014) over a foreclosure-related dispute; defendants removed to federal court.
Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court set a hearing and twice extended Keane’s time to respond at his requests, warning no further extensions would be allowed.
Keane filed his written opposition timely, but his counsel failed to appear at the July 22 hearing because he neglected to calendar it (attributed to being a solo practitioner with staff on leave).
The district court sua sponte dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Keane filed a Rule 60(b) motion the next day claiming excusable neglect and seeking vacatur; the court denied relief (initially without prejudice, then denied again after a supporting affidavit).
Keane appealed only the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion; the First Circuit considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying vacatur and sustaining the dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief from a sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute	Keane: counsel’s nonappearance was inadvertent, excusable neglect (heavy solo practice, assistants on leave); dismissal with prejudice was disproportionate and no merit adjudication occurred	Defendants: counsel’s neglect justified dismissal; prejudice (travel costs, need to proceed) supports district court’s action	Reversed: denial of Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of discretion; dismissal vacated and case remanded
Whether routine attorney negligence can justify dismissal with prejudice	Keane: isolated, nonrepetitive negligence is not egregious enough for dismissal	Defendants: failure to appear warrants dismissal to enforce docket control	Court: routine/isolated neglect generally does not merit dismissal with prejudice; courts should favor merits and consider lesser sanctions
Whether a Rule 60(b) motion can supply missing facts after dismissal for failure to prosecute	Keane: Rule 60(b) provides the occasion to explain absence and cure due process concerns	Defendants: (implicit) Rule 60(b) relief not warranted here	Court: Rule 60(b) is the appropriate corrective; district court should evaluate the full factual record before upholding dismissal
Whether defendants suffered serious prejudice from counsel’s absence	Keane: defendants only showed travel cost inconvenience, remediable by monetary sanction or proceeding without oral argument	Defendants: absence harmed their right to have the hearing as scheduled	Court: no serious prejudice shown that would justify dismissal with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (availability of Rule 60(b) relief mitigates due-process concerns from dismissal for attorney conduct)
Pomales v. Celulares Telefónica, Inc., 342 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2003) (dismissal for want of prosecution is an "awesome" sanction and not appropriate except for aggravated circumstances)
Dávila-Álvarez v. Escuela de Medicina Universidad Central del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) review committed to district court discretion)
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2016) (Rule 60(b) relief and excusable neglect standard are demanding)
Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2013) (appeal jurisdiction depends on specifying the order(s) appealed)
Negrón v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 316 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2003) (routine attorney carelessness usually not excusable neglect)
Vargas v. Gonzalez, 975 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1992) (attorney’s failure to attend a status conference at his own request was not excusable)
Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch. Dept., 322 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2003) (attorneys must manage caseloads to meet time requirements or face consequences)
Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2005) (excusable neglect inquiry requires equitable, totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Ortiz-Anglada v. Ortiz-Perez, 183 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 1999) (favors disposition on the merits)