DUNEGHY v. TRIANGLE ENTERPRISES, INC.
Filing
52
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/2/2015. (TMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
TEDDY DUNEGHY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRIANGLE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant.
3:13-cv-00142-RLY-WGH
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff, Teddy Duneghy, moves for relief from the
court’s final judgment against him and in favor of Defendant, Triangle Enterprises, Inc.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
I.
Background
Plaintiff, by his attorneys, filed this employment discrimination lawsuit against
Defendant on June 25, 2013. On January 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge approved the
parties’ Case Management Plan (“CMP”) as submitted. Pursuant to CMP, the parties
Rule 26 initial disclosures were due to be served on or before February 24, 2014. In
addition, Plaintiff’s preliminary witness and exhibit lists, statement of special damages,
and settlement demand were due on or before March 24, 2014, and Defendant’s
preliminary witness and exhibit lists were due on or before April 23, 2014. The CMP
1
also scheduled a settlement conference for June 23, 2014, established a dispositive
motions deadline of October 23, 2014, and set a trial date of June 8, 2015.
On January 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Modify Case
Management Plan. In the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel states:
As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff has not tendered responses to the
Defendant’s initial discovery requests, and has not served the Defendant with
initial disclosures or a settlement demand. Counsel for Plaintiff discussed
the outstanding discovery with Counsel for the Defendant on the 16th day of
January 2015, and communicated to Counsel for the Defendant that the
Plaintiff had assured his Counsel that he would have the remaining discovery
materials by the end of the next week.
(Filing No. 32). The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion, and ordered the parties to
appear at the January 26, 2015 telephonic status conference to agree upon new CMP
deadlines. (Filing No. 34).
Following the January 26, 2015, telephonic status conference, the Magistrate
Judge entered an Order on Telephonic Status Conference and Order to Show Cause on
February 3, 2015. The Order stated, in relevant part:
Plaintiff’s counsel reported that Plaintiff has not responded to his counsel nor
provided discovery materials requested by the Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel
sent a letter to Mr. Duneghy indicating that counsel will withdraw in the near
term.
The Magistrate finds that, under Docket 19, Defendant has stated that it
served Plaintiff with written discovery on April 19, 2014. Settlement
conferences set in June and October of 2014 and January of 2015 have been
continued because Plaintiff has still not yet responded to those written
discovery materials. The case management plan deadlines were vacated at
Docket 34.
2
(Filing No. 36). The Order on Telephonic Status Conference and Order to Show Cause
then vacated the trial setting of June 8, 2015, did not set any new CMP deadlines, and
stated, in relevant part:
3.
If Plaintiff’s counsel is going to file a motion to withdraw, he should
do so within two (2) weeks of the date of this Order.
4.
Unless Plaintiff has fully complied with all outstanding discovery
beforehand, he is ORDERED TO APPEAR and to show cause why this
matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 4, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., Evansville time (CDT), in Room 335,
Federal Building, Evansville, Indiana. Plaintiff must appear in person so
that this hearing can be held on the record, unless by prior agreement with
Defendant’s counsel the parties agree that Plaintiff need not appear.
(Id.).
On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw due to an
irretrievable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Filing No. 37). In the
Motion to Withdraw, counsel noted his inability to attain completed discovery responses
from Plaintiff to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant’s First Set of
Requests for Production, which were served upon Plaintiff on April 18, 2014. Attached
to the Motion were three letters from Plaintiff’s counsel dated June 24, 2014, October 1,
2014, and January 23, 2015, advising Plaintiff of the importance of completing the
discovery requests and of the need to contact counsel immediately. In addition, counsel’s
January 23rd letter also advised Plaintiff that if Plaintiff did not provide him with the
responses to discovery within seven days, he would be forced to withdraw as his counsel.
The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion to Withdraw on February 27, 2015. (Filing No.
38).
3
The show cause hearing was held on March 4, 2015. Plaintiff did not appear. On
March 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
(Filing No. 40).
On April 14, 2015, after receiving a copy of the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff produced the outstanding discovery to his counsel. Meanwhile, no objection to
the Report and Recommendation was ever filed.
On May 4, 2015, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation and issued a
final judgment. (Filing Nos. 41-42).
On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel reentered his appearance and filed the
present Motion for Relief from Final Judgment.
II.
Discussion
Before addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court needs to address one
issue – the court’s final judgment. It reads: “The court, having adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation dismissing this action without prejudice, now
enters final judgment.” (Filing No. 42). Although the Magistrate Judge did recommend
dismissing the case without prejudice, his recommendation was based on Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute. That type of dismissal requires a final judgment. Borrero v. City of
Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 699 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Taylor v. City of Chicago, 334 Fed.
Appx. 760, 761 (7th Cir. 2009) (“A dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as a final
judgment on the merits.”). Accordingly, the court rightly issued a final judgment, but
4
wrongly included the words “without prejudice.” The court now turns to the merits of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) authorizes relief from a court’s judgment or
order on a variety of grounds, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable
neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by the opposing party, lack of
jurisdiction of the issuing court, or prior satisfaction or release of the judgment. Rule
60(b)(6) adds a “catch-all” provision which authorizes relief for “any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires
a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535
(2005).
Plaintiff argues that he has satisfied his burden of showing exceptional
circumstances because, after he received the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to
dismiss his case for failure to prosecute,
Plaintiff took steps to ensure that all of the outstanding discovery was
produced in compliance with the Court’s prior orders by taking the
documents to Counsel. Moreover, Plaintiff sent out the discovery on the 14th
day of May, 2015, preceding the filing of this motion and signed a client
cooperation agreement wherein Plaintiff assured Counsel that he will fully
and faithfully comply with all requests made by either side or this District
Court. It can be seen that Plaintiff is taking the appropriate steps necessary
to show this Honorable Court that he wishes to efficiently and expeditiously
prosecute his case and controversy.
(Filing No. 44 at 6). Plaintiff’s change of heart comes a year too late. Indeed, his
wholesale neglect of his case caused the court to vacate three scheduled settlement
conferences, vacate CMP deadlines, and hold a show cause hearing which Plaintiff did
not bother to attend. He wasted not only the court’s time and resources, but also
5
Defendant’s time and resources. Plaintiff failed to prosecute his case, and he must now
suffer the consequences.
III.
Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist justifying relief
from the court’s final judgment. Accordingly, his Motion for Relief from Final Judgment
(Filing No. 44) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of September 2015.
__________________________________
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.
6
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?