Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

May Court Grant Rule 60(b) Relief Sua Sponte? Circuit Split

Reich v. Hallet (In re Hallet), 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4992 (Bankr. D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2011):

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024, "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. . . ." Admittedly, there is a circuit level split of authority over whether a court may grant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) sua sponte***.

Footnote 29. Compare Eaton v. Jamrog, 984 F.2d 760, 762 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) bars sua sponte relief), and Dow v. Baird, 389 F.2d 882, 884-885 (10th Cir. 1968) (same), with Fort Knox Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) permits sua sponte relief), Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 351-352 (9th Cir. 1999) (same), McDowell v. Celebrezze, 310 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1962) (same), and United States v. Jacobs, 298 F.2d 469, 472 (4th Cir. 1961) (suggesting that sua sponte relief may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in some cases). See also Burnam v. Amoco Container Co., 738 F.2d 1230, 1232 (11th Cir. 1984) (the district court has the inherent authority to grant sua sponte relief if it complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)'s ten-day limit); Sun-Tek Indus., Inc. v. Kennedy Sky Lites, Inc., 848 F.2d 179, 181 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (applying Eleventh Circuit procedural law).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

Archives