BRADLEY et al v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al
Filing
27
ORDER DENYING 24 Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 11/12/2013. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
PAUL E. BRADLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-180 (MTT)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 60 relief from
judgment. (Doc. 24). The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on
September 18, 2013, and judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants on
September 20, 2013. (Docs. 22, 23). For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs’ motion is
DENIED.
The Plaintiffs seek relief from this Court’s Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) and 60(b)(4), which state, “[T]he court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . .
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; [or] (4) the judgment is void.” “Generally, a judgment
is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject
matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”
Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Though the Plaintiffs cite Rule 60(b)(3) as a ground for relief, they do not allege
any fraudulent conduct on the part of the Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden. See Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F.3d 1277,
1287 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to grant relief from a final judgment
if the moving party proves by clear and convincing evidence that an adverse party has
obtained the verdict through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.”).
For their Rule 60(b)(4) ground for relief, the Plaintiffs appear to allege their due
process rights were violated when this Court dismissed their Complaint without
prejudice for failing to comply with the pleading standards in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Apparently the Plaintiffs also believe the Court’s dismissal of their Complaint violated
their right to a jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment. However, “[t]he district
court's compliance with and reliance upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not
violate . . . any litigant's constitutional rights.” McWeay v. Citibank, N.A., 521 F. App’x
784, 789 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Garvie v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186,
1190 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 did not violate
the Seventh Amendment)). Though pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys, pro se plaintiffs must still comply the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Cooper v. Cmty. Haven for Adults & Children with
Disabilities, 2013 WL 24240 at *3 (M.D. Fla.); Appleton v. Intergraph Corp., 627 F.
Supp. 2d 1342, 1348 (M.D. Ga. 2008).
Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged a basis entitling them to relief from the
Court’s previous Order, their motion is DENIED.
2
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of November, 2013.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?