Bunch v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees
Filing
182
ORDER denying Bunch's redacted 178 Motion and 179 Motion. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/13/2017. (jak)(Docket text modified on 12/13/2017 to correct the linkage)(jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
GLORIA A. BUNCH
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:11-cv-869-DPM
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, A Body
Politic and Corporate
DEFENDANT
ORDER
UAMS fired Ms. Bunch a few months after she started working
there.
Bunch sued the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees,
alleging that discrimination and retaliation caused her job loss. This
Court-Judge
Baker
presiding-eventually
granted
summary
judgment to the Board, Ng 161, and entered final judgment. That was
in the spring of 2016. Bunch appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
863 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2017). That was in July 2017. Citing various
provisions of Federal Rule 60, Bunch now moves to vacate this Court's
judgment. She says that Judge Baker had a conflict of interest because
her husband had connections to U AMS. Bunch also says that several
of the lawyers appointed to represent her did too. All this, Bunch
continues, adds up to fraud on the Court, requiring that the judgment
be set aside. Bunch's redacted motion and motion, Ng 178 & 179, are
denied for several reasons.
First, Bunch could have raised the points that she now makes
sooner, but did not. This case was pending here for more than four
years. The appeal took another year. The biographical materials Bunch
attaches to her motion are from the internet and other public sources.
It is not reasonable for Bunch to have waited until now, when the case
is done, to seek relief on this basis. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1); compare
Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 617-18 (8th Cir. 2004).
Second, and more importantly, Bunch has not shown that Judge
Baker had any conflict of interest.
Her husband practices law at
Mitchell Williams, a big firm based in Little Rock.
Bunch's new
materials do not establish that Judge Baker's husband has any
connection with U AMS. The materials show that other current and
former members of the law firm have various U AMS connections.
Some examples. A lawyer left the firm to work for U AMS. A current
firm lawyer used to work there. One of the firm's senior lawyers taught
an environmental law course for the hospital. And several firm lawyers
are, or have been, involved in groups that support UAMS. So, some
Mitchell Williams lawyers have ties to UAMS, but Judge Baker's
husband does not.
Third, the circumstances about some of Bunch's appointed
lawyers are similar. One of those lawyers was a "special guest" at a
UAMS Board meeting, and a member of his law firm was chair of a
UAMS advisory board. Bunch says that this lawyer was really working
-2-
against her, and for UAMS, as part of a court-directed effort against
Bunch. The circumstances, though, don't establish any such plot. And
Judge Baker addressed the falling out between this lawyer and Bunch
when it happened. NQ 134.
Fourth, this record does not show any fraud on the Court. Bunch
hasn't demonstrated that it would be "manifestly unconscionable to
allow the judgment to stand." Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
620 F.3d 873, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
The Court
understands that Bunch believes she was treated unfairly in her job and
should have won her case. But the circumstances she now argues do
not justify re-opening her dispute with UAMS.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
J'J Dec.e.~ ~o 17
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?