Moore v. Castro
Civil Action No. 2014-2109
| D.D.C. | May 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrew P. Moore, a 62+ African-American former HUD employee and PMF finalist, alleges race, sex, age discrimination and retaliation after being assigned a building-inspector role (not the management role he expected) and later terminated in Sept. 2014.
- Moore filed EEO charges and sued HUD and several individual HUD employees in Dec. 2014 asserting ADEA and Title VII claims, hostile work environment, discriminatory discharge, and several conspiracy/RICO-style claims against individuals.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; on June 17, 2016 the District Court dismissed or granted summary judgment as to all claims except Moore’s hostile work environment claim under the ADEA (Count IV).
- Moore moved to vacate the June 17 Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(4); the Court instead construes the motion as a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order.
- The Court denied reconsideration, holding Moore rehashed arguments already rejected (bias/disqualification, timeliness of answer, alleged fraud in HUD’s internal investigation and Report of Investigation, defective service, need for discovery, and procedural irregularities) and failed to identify new law or facts showing that justice required revisiting the June 17 decision.
- The Court stayed further proceedings on the surviving hostile-work-environment claim while resolving the motion to vacate; the denial leaves that single claim intact for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle for relief | Moore sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3)/(4) | Defendants argued Rule 60 applies only to final judgments | Court: June 17 Order was interlocutory; construed motion under Rule 54(b) and denied reconsideration |
| Judicial disqualification | Moore claimed judicial bias and sought recusal | Court said objections were case-management grievances, not objective basis for disqualification | Denied; no reasonable observer would question impartiality |
| Timeliness of defendants’ answer | Moore argued defendants failed to timely answer | Defendants filed Rule 12 motions which toll answer deadline; court also entered a stay | Denied; tolling and stay justified delay |
| Fraud in HUD's motion to stay and Report of Investigation | Moore alleged HUD misrepresented investigation and doctored report (e.g., veterans' preference) | Defendants produced a Report of Investigation and argued the Court did not rely on it in deciding motions | Denied; Court didn’t rely on agency’s report and Moore showed no new evidence of prejudice |
| Service on individual defendants / DOJ representation | Moore argued improper service and fraudulent procurement of DOJ counsel | Defendants explained representation request procedures under 28 C.F.R. § 50.15 and that representation can be requested before formal service | Denied; service issue not relied upon and representation was proper |
| Alleged false affidavits and need for discovery | Moore claimed affidavits and exhibits were falsified and sought discovery under Rule 56(d) | Defendants maintained their evidence and that Moore failed to submit a 56(d) affidavit showing specific discoverable facts | Denied; Moore did not meet Convertino / Rule 56(d) requirements or identify specific discoverable facts |
| Procedural irregularities and dispositive resolution | Moore contended defendants’ reply brief was an unauthorized supplemental motion and that summary disposition improperly denied jury trial | Defendants argued reply was proper and dispositive motions are appropriate when no factual disputes or no legally cognizable claims exist | Denied; replies and case-management decisions proper; summary disposition lawful when warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (void-judgment standard under Rule 60(b)(4))
- Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court powerless to enter judgment = void)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Rule 54(b) is proper vehicle for interlocutory reconsideration)
- Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) (contrast of Rule 54(b) and Rule 60(b) standards)
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs. Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Rule 54(b) "as justice requires" standard)
- United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (objective standard for judge disqualification under § 455(a))
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and role in litigation)
- Convertino v. Department of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (requirements for Rule 56(d) affidavits)