Rivera-Velázquez v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance, 750 F.3d 1

In March 2010 Rivera-Velázquez applied for a boiler inspector job with Hartford Steam Boiler and accepted a May 18, 2010 offer, which the Company later rescinded.
Rivera-Velázquez sued in Puerto Rico court alleging age discrimination under Law 100; the Company removed to federal court based on diversity and amount in controversy.
Over the next year, Rivera-Velázquez and his attorneys repeatedly failed to respond to court orders; several motions were deemed unopposed and sanctions were imposed for discovery/noncompliance issues.
On September 4, 2012 the district court ordered a joint pretrial submission; Rivera-Velázquez failed to provide his portion by the deadline and faced a show-cause order threatening dismissal.
Rivera-Velázquez did not respond to the show-cause order; the district court dismissed the case with prejudice and Rivera-Velázquez did not appeal the dismissal, later moving for relief under Rule 60(b).
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; the First Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion under Rule 60(b) and affirmed the dismissal denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(1) excusable neglect supports relief	Rivera-Velázquez argues illness and counsel failure caused delay warranting relief.	Hartford Steam Boiler contends neglect was inexcusable given lack of communication and independent counsel.	No relief; district court did not abuse discretion.
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) was available	Rule 60(b)(6) should save relief for extraordinary reasons not covered by (1).	Rule 60(b)(6) not available when (1) applies; cannot be used to circumvent (1)-(5).	Not available; (6) barred by mutual exclusivity with (1).
Whether the district court properly weighed excusable neglect factors	Circumstances like attorney illness and lack of prejudice favor relief.	courts properly weighed factors; appellant's silence and failure to inform counsel undermine relief.	District court acted within discretion; factors support denial.
Whether attorney illness alone overrides the failure to communicate	Illness can justify relief when it prevented prosecution or communication.	Illness did not demonstrate an inability to communicate; other counsel remained active.	Illness not per se sufficient; combined with other failures, relief denied.

Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(b) relief requires timely, exceptional circumstances)
Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2013) (ultimate factor is reason for oversight; district court best positioned)
Cintrón-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522 (1st Cir. 2002) (excusable neglect analysis considers reasonableness of noncompliance)
Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274 (1st Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b)(6) not a vehicle to circumvent (1)-(5))
Gravatt v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 101 F. App'x 194 (9th Cir. 2004) (illness can support relief under Rule 60(b)(1) in appropriate context)
de la Torre v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (Rule 60(b)(6) and (1) are mutually exclusive)