Lisa Morgan v. Robert Mumma, II
698 F. App'x 61
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Mumma, II appealed the denial of his motion to reinstate his complaint following a district-court remand.
- The District Court remanded the action on May 4, 2015.
- Mumma filed a Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate on December 27, 2016.
- Rule 60(c)(1) requires certain Rule 60(b) motions to be made no more than one year after the entry of the judgment or order.
- The Third Circuit reviews denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion and has held the one-year period begins to run from the district court’s ruling.
- The panel affirmed the District Court because Mumma’s Rule 60(b) motion was filed well over one year after the remand; a separate recusal issue was not preserved on appeal and, in any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b) motion to reinstate after remand | Mumma sought relief from the remand via Rule 60(b) (asserting grounds for relief) | Motion was untimely because Rule 60(c)(1) one-year period had passed from the May 4, 2015 remand | Denied — motion untimely; appeal affirmed |
| Motion to recuse Judge Conner | Mumma raised recusal after remand | Issue not included in notice of appeal; recusal motion filed after judge no longer presiding and thus moot | Not reached on appeal; district court did not abuse discretion in denying recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorenzo v. Griffith, 12 F.3d 23 (3d Cir. 1993) (standard of review and procedural guidance for Rule 60(b) practice on appeal)
- Hancock Indus. v. Schaeffer, 811 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1987) (one-year Rule 60 time period begins when the district court issues the challenged ruling)
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of district-court denial of recusal motions)