Wagstaff v. United States
118 Fed. Cl. 172
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims challenging Department of Education debt collection practices (claims for unlawful debt collection, regulatory and physical takings, and due process violations) and sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The court dismissed most claims on defendant’s motion to dismiss, leaving only an illegal-exaction/garnishment claim; the court later granted summary judgment for the Government and entered final judgment on August 1, 2013.
- Plaintiff attempted to file an October 7, 2013 submission the court construed as an untimely notice of appeal and returned it unfiled on October 9, 2013; Plaintiff subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari that was returned.
- On February 24, 2014 Plaintiff filed two post-judgment motions: (1) seeking reconsideration of the October 9, 2013 order (treated as an RCFC 59 motion); and (2) seeking relief from the August 1, 2013 final judgment (RCFC 60).
- The Government opposed relief from the final judgment and noted the October 7, 2013 submissions were untimely and that discovery the plaintiff claimed not to have received had in fact been produced.
- The court denied both motions: the first as untimely and lacking grounds for reconsideration or excusable neglect; the second for failure to show extraordinary circumstances, newly discovered evidence, or clear-and-convincing proof of fraud or misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reopen or reconsider its Oct. 9, 2013 order returning Plaintiff’s Oct. 7 filing as untimely (treated under RCFC 59) | Wagstaff said the submission was a Notice of Appeal mischaracterized as a motion and should be accepted or time extended | Gov’t: notice was filed 67 days after judgment and is untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); no good cause/excusable neglect shown for extension | Denied — motion untimely under RCFC 59(b); no excusable neglect or good cause to extend appeal deadline under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) |
| Whether relief from the Aug. 1, 2013 final judgment is warranted under RCFC 60(b)(1) (mistake/excusable neglect) | Wagstaff argued bias, failure to consider evidence, government misconduct, and that DCIA retroactivity/contracting barred offsets | Gov’t: motion untimely, allegations unsupported, discovery was produced, and prior rulings correctly found promissory notes valid | Denied — plaintiff has no meritorious claim, delay unreasonable, prejudice to Government, and plaintiff’s own conduct caused the judgment |
| Whether relief is warranted under RCFC 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) | Plaintiff claims evidence and regulatory arguments (e.g., DCIA retroactivity) justify relief | Gov’t: evidence was known before litigation and plaintiff cites no newly discovered, material evidence | Denied — no newly discovered evidence; evidence existed pre-suit and would not change outcome |
| Whether relief is warranted under RCFC 60(b)(3)/(6) (fraud/misconduct or other extraordinary circumstances) | Plaintiff alleges government fraud, improper relationships with debt collector, and failure to provide discovery | Gov’t: allegations are conclusory and contradicted by record (discovery produced); no clear and convincing proof | Denied — allegations are unsupported; no clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud; no extraordinary circumstances to justify relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Webster v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 676 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (discussing standards for reconsideration and RCFC 60 relief)
- Del. Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (identifying grounds for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice)
- Patton v. Sec’y of HHS, 25 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (RCFC 60(b)(1) relief for judicial error/inadvertence when timely)
- Quintin v. United States, 746 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (untimely notice of appeal without good cause/excusable neglect must be denied)
- TDM Am., LLC v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 485 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (Rule 60 relief is extraordinary and limited; newly discovered evidence standard)
- Madison Servs., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 501 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (RCFC 60(b)(3) requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud/misconduct)