Larry Waites v. Lee County, Mississippi
498 F. App'x 401
5th Cir.2012Background
- Waites was arrested in 2006 for DUI; he later sued alleging excessive force during booking at the Lee County-Tupelo Jail.
- Defendants sought a protective order in 2011 for discovery misconduct and the court extended scheduling deadlines; deposition of Waites’s expert occurred but neither Waites nor his expert attended.
- Sanctions were imposed on Waites’s counsel; deposition obligations for Waites’s expert were ordered; subsequent depositions again were missed.
- An agreed order dismissed the case with prejudice on June 20, 2011, vacating sanctions; Waites later retained new counsel and sought to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the case.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found Waites informed and consenting to the dismissal, and denied the motion to reinstate; Waites appealed timely.
- The appeal is analyzed under Rule 59(e) for abuse of discretion; material facts concern informed consent and potential conflicts of interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a conflict of interest and did Waites consent knowingly? | Waites contends counsel’s conflict invalidated consent. | District court considered affidavits and found informed consent despite possible conflict. | No reversible error; consent found and affirmed. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion denying vacatur and reinstate? | Waite sclaims he was misinformed and should have a hearing on informed consent. | Record supported informed consent and discretionary denial of reinstate. | Affirmed denial of motion to vacate and reinstate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund v. Paramount Industries, Inc., 829 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1987) (right to a hearing on vacatur when credibility is at issue)
- Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854 (5th Cir. 2003) (manifest error standard for Rule 59(e))
- F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 1995) (consent despite potential conflict)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (reconsideration is extraordinary, to be used sparingly)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 59(e))
- Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 59(e) standards in Fifth Circuit)
- Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 1998) (scope of Rule 59(e) motions and reconsideration)
- In re ProEducation Int’l Inc., 587 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2009) (local rule framework for conflicts of interest)