Patricia P. Weisman v. Charles E. Smith Management, Inc. Wilson AssociatesPatricia P. Weisman v. Charles E. Smith Management, Inc. Wilson Associates
This is а slip and fall case filed in federal court pursuant to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
On March 24, 1987, after oral argument of the instant appeal, plaintiff/appellant filed a motion in the district court under
For the reasons which follow we now affirm the judgments entered by the district court on March 25, 1986. We also deny plaintiff/appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.
I
In 1983 plaintiff/appellant (“Weisman”) worked for Kelly Girl Services in its office on the first floor of the Key Building in Arlington, Virginia. On Junе 10, 1983, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Weisman walked upstairs from that office to the second floor of the building. Weisman fell after taking one step on the second floor, which had just been waxed by non-party Cаlvin Thomas.
Defendant/appellee Wilson Associates (“Wilson”) owns the Key Building. Defendant/appellee Charles E. Smith Management, Inc. (“Charles E. Smith”) is the managing agent for Wilson, and is responsible for the leasing, mаintenance and daily upkeep of the Key Building.
On October 5, 1983, Weisman filed a slip and fall suit against Wilson and Charles E. Smith in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia. Wilson and Charles E. Smith filed a third party complaint (seeking indemnification) against Red Coats, Inc., which performed certain maintenance services in the Key Building. The state court parties engaged in some discovery. Weisman voluntarily dismissed her state court action apрarently for reasons unrelated to the merits of the litigation.
Weisman thereafter filed suit against Wilson and Charles E. Smith in federal court on October 17, 1985. Wilson and Charles E. Smith filed an Answer on October 24,1985. Wilson and Charles E. Smith havе been represented throughout the instant federal litigation by the same law firm which served as counsel for Red Coats, Inc. in state court. The arrangement apparently proceeds from Red Coаts, Inc.’s indemnification obligation.
The federal court parties engaged in additional discovery. Weisman submitted document requests which provided in part: Request No. 5
Complete personnel files and any additional dоcuments referring to Calvin Thomas, including any documentation which concerns his employment termination following the accident which is the subject matter of this suit.
On November 26, 1985, Wilson and Charles E. Smith objected to the rеquest on the sole ground that it “constitute^] an invasion of the privacy of Calvin Thomas.”
On December 9, 1985, Weisman submitted her First Request for Admissions, which provided in part:
3 That each of the following statements is true:
a. That at the time of the occurrence at issuе in this suit, June 10, 1983, Calvin Thomas was an employee of Charles E. Smith Management, Inc.
b. That at the time of the occurrence at issue in this suit, June 10, 1983, Calvin Thomas was an employee of Wilson Associates.
On December 26, 1985, Wilson and Charles E. Smith answered the foregoing requests as follows: “3.a. Admitted, b. Denied.” Weisman also submitted interrogatories to Wilson and Charles E. Smith. On March 20, 1986, four days prior to trial, Wilson and Charles E. Smith answered one of the interrogatories as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify all persons known or believed by you to have been present in the vicinity of the accident. This request extends to all persons who were present at any period of timе, no matter how short, from the two hours immediately before the accident to two hours immediately after the accident.
ANSWER NO. 2:
We know of no persons who were present in the vicinity of the accident. Mr. Weisman did claim that an individual named Calvin Thomas assisted his wife after her alleged fall. Mr. Thomas was a temporary maintenance employee of Wilson Associates from June 22 through July 15, 1983.
Wilson’s and Charles E. Smith’s answers to interrogatories were submitted over the signature of Warren Dennis Whitworth, an employee of Charles E. Smith who, at the time of Weisman’s fall, was employed by both Wilson and Charles E. Smith.
The case was tried on March 24 and 25, 1986. At trial Wilson and Charles E. Smith defended on the theory that, while Calvin Thomas had been an employee of both of them on June 10, 1983, he had not been acting within the scope of his employment for either in waxing the second floor of the Key Building. They сontended that on the day in question a Red Coats, Inc. supervisor saw Calvin Thomas (who usually was a Red Coats, Inc. employee) working in the Key Buildipg, and told him to wax the second floor. Wilson and Charles E. Smith argued thаt the waxing was outside Thomas’ scope of employment, on the basis that he had been hired by them solely to do certain other types of cleaning on the first floor of the building.
The district court admitted evidеnce supporting the defense theory. The district court also refused to allow into evidence the Admission of December 26, 1985, and refused to instruct the jury on its binding effect, apparently on the grounds that the Admissiоn was duplicative of the evidence and that such an instruction might unduly stress a particular aspect of the case. The jury returned general verdicts in favor of both defendants/appellees, and the district court entered judgment accordingly. Weisman initially filed no post-judgment motions but appealed directly. She later filed in the district court her ultimately unsuccessful motion for relief under
II
Weisman contends thаt Wilson and Charles E. Smith engaged in a pattern of fraudulent and misleading discovery responses in both state and federal court, resulting in their obtaining judgments in their favor in the district court. She seeks a new trial as a remеdy for the fraud she claims was perpetrated in the district court.
Often a party does not seek to overturn a judgment on such grounds until sometime after that judgment has been affirmed on appeal or the timе for appeal has elapsed, for the simple reason that the basis for such an allegation often is not known until after the judgment has become final. Under such circumstances the party seeking to overturn a federal civil judgment normally can proceed in three ways. That party can file a motion under
Under each of those approaches, the proper court in which to raise the allegatiоn that a judgment was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct normally is the district court. It is obvious that a motion under
In the instant case, plaintiff/appellant alleges on appeal that defendants/appellees obtained judgment in their favor by virtue of fraud, misrеpresentation or other misconduct. Since this appeal was filed, she has filed a motion for relief under
We believe that the district court is the proper forum to determine in the first instance whether there is sufficient basis to overturn the judgments on the grounds raised. That court is in the best position to decide whether any fraud was perpetrated upon it or other untoward action occurred, and is the proper forum for the adjudication of claims of plaintiff/appellant which fall under
Ill
Plaintiff/appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal, including the admission of evidence which allegedly contradiсts defendants/appellees’ Admission pursuant to
For the foregoing reasons we affirm. We also deny plaintiff/appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Motions under
. The bases for relief in an independent action in equity as well as a "fraud on the court" allegаtion usually can be raised in a motion under
. At oral argument of the instant appeal the panel suggested that the district court was the proper forum for resolution in the first instance of plaintiff/appellant’s claims, by meаns of a motion under
. References to the state court record could not alter our conclusion. We therefore deny plaintiff/appellant's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.