More v. O'neill
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42711
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (including Charles E. Hughes) sued the Secretary of the Treasury under the ADEA alleging age discrimination in BEP promotion decisions (1997–2003).
- The court dismissed most claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but preserved two promotion claims for trial; Hughes had a prima facie case as to a 2001 promotion.
- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for defendants (July 28, 2008), finding plaintiffs failed to rebut the employer’s non‑discriminatory reasons (e.g., volunteer overtime and assignments favored by the selecting officer).
- Nearly five years later Hughes moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) seeking relief from the final judgment, alleging fraud by defense counsel (misleading testimony about a seniority-based promotion system) and ineffective/grossly negligent representation by his own counsel.
- The government opposed; court analyzed timeliness, the exclusivity of Rule 60(b) subsections, and the extraordinary‑circumstances standard for 60(b)(6) and fraud‑on‑the‑court under 60(d)(3).
- The court denied relief: Hughes’ motion was untimely and not filed within a reasonable time; he failed to show extraordinary circumstances or the kind of egregious fraud on the court required for 60(d)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6) for alleged fraud/misconduct | Hughes: fraud by defense counsel and counsel incompetence made judgment "manifestly unjust" | Defendant: motion is untimely, allegations could have been raised earlier, relief would prejudice defendant | Denied — motion untimely; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether allegations fit within Rule 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(3) despite styling under 60(b)(6) | Hughes framed complaints as fraud/mistake but filed under (6) to avoid one‑year limit | Defendant: (6) cannot circumvent the one‑year rule for (1)–(3) | Denied — court notes mutual exclusivity; Hughes offered no justification for circumventing timing rules |
| Whether a nearly five‑year delay was a "reasonable time" to file under Rule 60 | Hughes: delay explained by fee dispute with counsel and inability to obtain transcript | Defendant: undue delay; relitigation would prejudice defendant and witnesses | Denied — delay unreasonable; plaintiff bore fault and was not diligent |
| Whether fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3) occurred | Hughes: counsel coached witnesses and misrepresented promotion system timing, undermining court integrity | Defendant: allegations are not the kind of egregious conduct that impugns court | Denied — allegations do not meet high threshold for fraud on the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (extraordinary‑circumstances requirement for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Salazar v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir.) (timeliness and reasonableness in Rule 60(b) context; mutual exclusivity of subsection (6))
- Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 675 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir.) (fraud on the court reserved for extreme, integrity‑impinging conduct)
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (delay excused where plaintiff bore no fault; example of vacating default for severe hardship)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) is mutually exclusive of other enumerated grounds)