Turner v. Pleasant
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23647
5th Cir.2011Background
- Turners seek to reopen a 2001 district court judgment in a personal injury case arising from a yacht wake incident.
- The suit was in Eastern District of Louisiana and ended in a bench trial with judgment for the defendants.
- Turners moved for a new trial and recusal; Judge Porteous denied, and this court affirmed.
- After Porteous’s impeachment/removal in 2010, Turners filed a separate independent action in equity alleging fraud on the court.
- District court dismissed as barred by res judicata; Turners appealed and this court reversed and remanded.
- Turners’ new complaint incorporated House Report allegations of improper gifts and relationships involving Judge Porteous, Chopin, and Cenac.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether independent action in equity can overcome res judicata | Turners contend the action is an independent equity claim meriting relief despite res judicata. | Defendants argue res judicata bars any collateral attack on the judgment. | Yes; res judicata may yield to a plausible independent action. |
| Whether the Turners plausibly plead five elements of an independent action | Turners plead a meritorious claim and possible fraud affecting the judgment. | Defendants contend the pleadings fail to show fraud, accident, or lack of adequate remedy. | Plaintiffs plausibly plead all five elements; the action may proceed. |
| Whether the alleged fraud is of a magnitude allowing independent action rather than Rule 60(b)(3) | Fraud alleged is substantial and not the typical Rule 60(b)(3) fraud on the court. | Fraud should be addressed under Rule 60(b)(3) if properly pleaded. | Fraud alleged is plausible as independent-action fraud, not limited to Rule 60(b)(3). |
| Whether Turners were at fault for failing to uncover the fraud | Turners exercised diligence; House investigation later revealed the facts. | Turners could have pursued more discovery at trial. | Turners not at fault; alleged concealment by judge and counsel impeded discovery. |
| Whether Turners have an adequate legal remedy remaining | Remedy under Rule 60 is ineffective due to time limits and the nature of fraud alleged. | Remedies were available under Rule 60(b) within the one-year window. | No adequate remedy at law; independent action appropriate to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1981) (five elements of an independent action in equity)
- Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1998) (fraud on the court; distinguish independent action from Rule 60(b))
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2004) (finality and res judicata considerations in post-judgment relief)
- Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for ruling on dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (presumption of honesty of judges; integrity of the judiciary)