Madura et al v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
79
ORDER: The Maduras' Rule 60(b)(2)(3)(6) Motion for Relief from July 16, 2010 Final Judgment 76 is DENIED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/14/2013. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
ANDRZEJ MADURA and ANNA DOLINSKAMADURA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 8:10-cv-523-T-33AEP
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This
cause
comes
before
the
Court
pursuant
to
the
Maduras’ “Rule 60(b)(2)(3)(6) Motion for Relief from July 16,
2010 Final Judgment” (Doc. # 76), which was filed on October
15, 2013.
Bank of America filed a Response in Opposition to
the Motion on November 8, 2013. (Doc. # 78).
For the reasons
that follow, the Motion is denied.
I.
Background
The Maduras initiated the present action in state court.
Because the Maduras asserted that Bank of America violated the
Truth
in
Lending
Act,
15
U.S.C.
§
1601,
et
seq.,
as
implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226, et seq. (TILA),
Bank of America removed the action on February 25, 2010,
predicating jurisdiction on the presentation of a federal
question. (Doc. # 2).
On July 16, 2010, the Court dismissed
this action with prejudice. (Doc. # 51). The Maduras filed an
appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit issued an Order characterizing
the appeal as frivolous and denying the Maduras’ request to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. # 71). Thereafter,
on June 24, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal
for want of prosecution. (Doc. # 74).
At this juncture, the Maduras seek relief from the
Court’s Order dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(2), (3), and (6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
II.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order or proceeding for the following
reasons:
. . . .
(2) newly discovered evidence, that with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A motion for relief from judgment must be made “within a
reasonable time” and if predicated upon subsections 1-3, must
be made within one year of the Order in question. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(c)(1).
Because the Maduras seek relief pursuant to
subsections 2 and 3 several years after the entry of the
-2-
Court’s July 16, 2010, Order, such requests for relief are
time barred.
However, the Court will examine the Maduras’
requests under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule
60(b)(6)
has
been
described
as
“the
catch-all
ground,” Hartge v. Crosby, No. 8:02-cv-1254-T-30TGW, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 12556, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2008), an
“umbrella provision,” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d
677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984), and “a grand reservoir of equitable
power to do justice.” Id.
Rule 60(b)(6) provides an avenue
for relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Id.
In seeking redress pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the Maduras have
the burden of showing that, absent relief from the Court’s
Order, an extreme and unexpected hardship will result. Id. In
Griffin, the court cautioned against reopening final judgments
“lightly,”
explaining:
“The
desirability
for
order
and
predictability in the judicial process speaks for caution in
the reopening of judgments.” Id.
As
stated
in
Crapp
v.
City
of
Miami
Beach
Police
Department, 242 F.3d 1017, 1020 (11th Cir. 2001), “Relief
under this clause is an extraordinary remedy which may be
invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”
The Maduras have not demonstrated exceptional circumstances
warranting relief from the Court’s Order dismissing this
action with prejudice.
Furthermore, the Maduras’ Motion was
-3-
filed more than three years after the entry of the Order in
question. “It seems clear that time is relevant.
The longer
the delay the more intrusive is the effort to upset the
finality of the judgment.” Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398,
1402 (11th Cir. 1987).
“It is for the public good that there
be an end of litigation.” Waddell v. Hemerson, 329 F.3d 1300,
1309 n.11 (11th Cir. 2003).
The Maduras have not presented
extraordinary circumstances warranting relief pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6). The lengthy passage of time coupled with the patent
frivolity of their request mandates the denial of the Motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The Maduras’ Rule 60(b)(2)(3)(6) Motion for Relief from
July 16, 2010 Final Judgment (Doc. # 76) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th
day of November, 2013.
Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record
-4-
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?