Pucci v. Dearborn, City of et al

Filing 118

ORDER Granting 105 MOTION for Relief from 104 Judgment with Brief in Support filed by Mark W. Somers, and Temporarily Vacating 104 Judgment. Motions terminated: 105 MOTION for Relief from 104 Judgment with Brief in Support filed by Mark W. Somers. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JULIE A PUCCI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 07-10631
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
CHIEF JUDGE MARK W. SOMERS, in his
official and individual capacities,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
AND TEMPORARILY VACATING JUDGMENT
On June 30, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict in this case. Pursuant to that verdict, the Court
entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $734,361.00 on June 30, 2011. Because
the jury made a factual determination that the plaintiff’s speech caused or could have caused
disharmony at the 19th District Court, the Court granted the defendant fourteen days from the close
of trial to file a motion under Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District
205, Will County, Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and granted the plaintiff fourteen days to respond.
The defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, stay, and remittitur was timely filed on July
14, 2011; the plaintiff’s response was filed on July 28, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the defendant filed
a motion seeking relief from the June 30, 2011 judgment pending resolution of the Pickering issue.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) provides that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court
may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for. . . any
other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This provision “confers upon the district
court a broad equitable power to ‘do justice.’” Johnson v. Bell, 605 F.3d 333, 336 (6th Cir. 2010).
It “empowers district courts to revise judgments when necessary to ensure their integrity.” Ibid.

The defendant has filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, stay, and remittitur,
requesting that the Court perform a Pickering balancing test to determine whether the plaintiff’s
speech was protected by the First Amendment in light of the jury’s finding that the plaintiff’s speech
caused or could have caused disharmony at the 19th District Court. Should the Court decide the
motion in the defendant’s favor, the amount of the judgment for the plaintiff would be affected. The
Court finds this to be a reason justifying temporary relief from judgment until such time as the Court
performs the Pickering analysis requested by the defendant.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment [dkt.
#105] is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the judgment entered in this matter on June 30, 2011 [dkt. #104]
is VACATED until such time as the Court renders a decision on the defendant’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law, stay, and remittitur [dkt. #107].
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 24, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on October 24, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-