Norris v. Salazar
277 F.R.D. 22
D.D.C.2011Background
- Norris, proceeding pro se, sued Salazar in 2009 alleging race and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act related to pay and employment at the CFA, an agency within DOI.
- Defendant moved to dismiss two of Norris’s counts; Norris later, through counsel, sought to amend and opposition; the court denied partial dismissal and allowed amended complaint in 2010.
- Defendant filed a new motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 13, 2010; Norris had until January 14, 2011 to respond, with an extension granted to February 14, 2011.
- Norris did not respond by February 14, 2011, and no further extension was requested; on April 13, 2011, the court granted the motion to dismiss as conceded under Local Rule 7(b).
- In July 2011 Norris moved for reconsideration alleging counsel failures and lack of notice; the court granted leave to file and ultimately reinstated the case, directing Norris to respond within 30 days to the pending motion to dismiss.
- The court concluded that Rule 60(b)(6) provided relief due to extraordinary circumstances arising from counsel’s neglect, reinstating the case and setting new briefing deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(1) excusable neglect supports relief | Norris argues counsel’s neglect constitutes excusable neglect. | Counsel’s neglect does not satisfy excusable neglect and merits no relief. | No relief under Rule 60(b)(1); denied for excusable neglect. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary circumstances justify relief | Counsel’s neglect and communications failures are extraordinary circumstances. | Premature to grant relief without meritorious claim; circumstances insufficient. | Relief granted under Rule 60(b)(6); case reinstated. |
| Whether Norris must show a meritorious claim to obtain relief | Meritorious claim not required at this stage given mismanagement by counsel. | Merit must be shown in evaluating Rule 60(b) relief. | Merit not required at this stage to grant 60(b)(6) relief; reinstatement allowed to address merits later. |
| Whether reinstatement and reopening is appropriate given the delay | Reinstatement mitigates prejudice to Norris and preserves court’s interest in merits. | Delay and prejudice concerns render relief improper. | Reinstatement appropriate; no prejudice shown; equitable relief warranted. |
| Impact of counsel’s actions on final judgment | Court should not punish Norris for counsel’s neglect. | Final judgment stands absent proper opposition; relief unnecessary. | Court favored openness to merits; Rule 60(b)(6) relief granted to rectify counsel failure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (establishes standards for Rule 60(b) relief and burden of proof)
- 8 Gilcrease Lane, 668 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2009) (Rule 60(b) standard and equitable relief considerations)
- Mazengo v. Mzengi, 542 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2008) (burden and standards for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (extraordinary circumstances and narrow use of Rule 60(b)(6))
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (extraordinary circumstances and caution in using Rule 60(b)(6))
- Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (liberal interpretation of Rule 60(b) to promote merits resolution)
- Klapprott v. U.S., 335 U.S. 601 (1949) (extrordinary relief and final judgments principles)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (liberal relief principles under Rule 60(b))
- Norman v. United States, 377 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2005) (merit considerations in Rule 60(b) relief)
- Spann v. Comm’rs of the District of Columbia, 443 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (policy favoring resolution on the merits; Rule 60(b) relief)
- Bibeau v. Northeast Airlines Inc., 429 F.2d 212 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (counsel neglect and remedial relief considerations)
- Pulliam v. Pulliam, 478 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (liberal relief to mitigate counsel neglect)
- Butler v. Pearson, 636 F.2d 526 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (liberal relief to correct counsel neglect; merits concern)