Nelson v. Napolitano
657 F.3d 586
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Nelson, Decatur, Lawson, and Carter (plaintiffs) were DHS employees who filed a multi-count discrimination suit in 2007.
- The district court dismissed two counts; DHS did not answer due to an oversight.
- In May 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A).
- The court granted the dismissal and struck all remaining matters as moot; nine months later plaintiffs sought reinstatement under Rule 60(b).
- DHS argued the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b) after a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal and, alternatively, that no Rule 60(b) grounds were shown.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b) after Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal | Nelson et al. argued court could reinstate under Rule 60(b). | DHS asserted no jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal; dismissal precluded reinstatement. | District court retained limited jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b). |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was appropriate given standards and timing | Plaintiffs sought relief for tactical reasons after unforeseen circumstances. | No exceptional circumstances were shown; relief not warranted. | The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. |
| Whether plaintiffs could rely on Rule 60(b) despite not specifying the applicable subsection | Plaintiffs claimed broad grounds under Rule 60(b)(1)-(6). | Failing to specify the subsection and failing to present cogent argument warranted denial. | Failure to specify and develop argument under Rule 60(b) supported denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (Rule 41(a)(1) does not bar collateral issues; limits on dismissal)
- Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1987) (dismissal doctrine; effect of voluntary dismissal)
- McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178 (7th Cir. 1985) (unconditional dismissal terminates federal jurisdiction but can be reopened under Rule 60(b))
- Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) effects and voidness of subsequent order)
- Jenkins v. Village of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (dismissal effect; procedural posture after 41(a)(1))
- Eskridge v. Cook County, 577 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b) discretionary standard; extraordinary remedy)