Skrabec v. Town of North Attleboro, 321 F.R.D. 46

In Dec. 2012, 17-year-old Patrick Skrabee told classmates he “would like to shoot up the school”; police investigated and he was arrested and charged under M.G.L. c. 269 § 14.
The D.A. nolle prossed the original complaint (Feb. 2013) and charged Patrick with two misdemeanors; he was acquitted by jury in Feb. 2014.
Plaintiffs (Patrick and his parents) sued the Town and three officers in federal court asserting § 1983 claims, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and loss of consortium.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on Oct. 28, 2016; plaintiffs did not file an opposition by the court-ordered deadline and the court granted summary judgment as unopposed.
Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) to alter the judgment, citing excusable neglect based on settlement-related emails and Patrick’s unexpected death; defendants opposed.
The court denied the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, finding plaintiffs’ explanation did not show excusable neglect and reopening would unfairly prejudice defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs showed excusable neglect to reopen judgment under Rule 60(b)(1)	Counsel believed settlement was forthcoming from defense emails and Patrick’s death justified relief	No agreement to settle; plaintiffs never sought extension; counsel’s unilateral assumptions are not excusable	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show excusable neglect
Whether settlement communications excuse missing filing deadlines	Settlement discussions indicated defense would not oppose late opposition	No affirmative indication from defense; settlement talks do not excuse filings	Denied — unilateral assumptions insufficient
Whether death of plaintiff constitutes exceptional circumstance excusing counsel’s lapse	Patrick’s unexpected death (Oct. 20, 2016) made delay excusable	Counsel’s duty of diligence persists despite personal tragedy	Denied — death does not automatically excuse attorney neglect
Whether defendants would be prejudiced by reopening the case	Plaintiffs argued good faith and desire to litigate merits	Defendants would be unfairly prejudiced; judgment based on unopposed motion and statement of facts	Denied — prejudice and low likelihood of plaintiffs’ success weigh against reopening

Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.) (excusable neglect requires a convincing explanation; unilateral assumptions insufficient)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (defining excusable neglect standard)
Rivera-Velazquez v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (totality-of-the-circumstances test; need for exceptional circumstances for Rule 60 relief)
Davila-Alvarez v. Escuela de Medicina Universidad Cent. del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.) (attorney’s duty of diligence persists despite personal tragedy)
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163 (1st Cir.) (routine carelessness by counsel is not excusable neglect)
de la Torre v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (settlement negotiations do not excuse required court filings)
Caisse v. DuBois, 346 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.) (prejudice to non-movant and likelihood of success relevant to Rule 60 analysis)