Nansamba v. North Shore Medical Center, Inc.
727 F.3d 33
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Janat Nansamba was employed by North Shore Medical Center from 2002 as a nursing assistant.
- She developed hemorrhoids and sought leave for a colonoscopy after May 7, 2010, then was discharged three days later for performance reasons.
- She filed state-law claims and FMLA retaliation, which the district court removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the FMLA claim, concluding no serious health condition.
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration based on medical records, and later sought Rule 60(b) relief from judgment; the district court denied those motions.
- Plaintiff appeals the denial of relief from judgment, challenging the rulings under Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper for excusable neglect | Nansamba argues excusable neglect due to counsel's failure to review February 3 attachment. | Defendants contend neglect was not excusable and responsible counsel's inaction cannot justify relief. | No, district court did not abuse discretion; neglect was not excusable. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief was proper for fraud or misconduct | Plaintiff alleges defense fraud in arguing no serious health condition. | Defendants argue no misconduct affected plaintiff's ability to present facts. | No, lack of misconduct and access to records precluded relief. |
| Timeliness and scope of Rule 60(b) relief relative to appeal | Relief from judgment should toll the appeal period. | Rule 60(b) relief cannot substitute for a timely appeal of the underlying judgment. | Relief denied; timely appeal not resurrected; issues limited to Rule 60(b) ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(b) relief requires showing of exceptional circumstances and no prejudice)
- Fisher v. Kadant, Inc., 589 F.3d 505 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and should be granted sparingly)
- Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (excusable neglect factors, equitable assessment)
- Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez, 853 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1988) (no relief where party had access to disputed information)
- Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (necessity of diligent efforts to obtain records)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (fraud standard under Rule 60(b)(3) requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2005) (emphasizes evaluating reason for oversight in excusable neglect)
- Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. v. Reder, 355 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (burden on nonmovant to proffer rebuttal evidence in summary judgment)