Huddleston et al v. City of Byrnes Mill, MO
Filing
92
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, [Doc. No. 88], is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on July 21, 2020. (MCB)
Case: 4:17-cv-02456-HEA Doc. #: 92 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 841
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIJAH HUDDLESTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF BYRNES MILL, MO, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:17CV2456 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, [Doc.
No. 88]. Defendant Mike Smith opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is denied.
Background
On November 27, 2019, Defendant Mike Smith (“Smith” or “Defendant”)
filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file his Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint. On November 29, Smith filed his Answer. On December 3, the Court
denied Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time as moot.
Thereafter on December 4, Smith filed a Motion to Dismiss and a
Memorandum in Support thereof. On May 29, 2020, the Court granted Smith’s
Motion to Dismiss without response from Plaintiffs. In fact, there are no docket
entries in this case between December 4, 2019 and May 29, 2020.
Case: 4:17-cv-02456-HEA Doc. #: 92 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 842
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its decision granting Smith’s
Motion to Dismiss. In the instant Motion to Reconsider filed June 8, 2020,
Plaintiffs’ counsel states that “Through excusable neglect” he thought the
December 3 Order denying Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time as moot was a
denial of Smith’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he “therefore
thought that no response was need (sic) to the motion [to dismiss] since it was
denied by the court.”
Upon realizing that the Motion to Dismiss was still pending, Plaintiffs’
counsel “drafted a response with a motion to file out of time and attempted to file
such documents on February 13, 2020.” Counsel states that he “firmly believed
that the documents were received by the court.” Counsel further states that he “had
not followed up with the court to check the status of the case but assumed that the
court was shut down like the circuit courts” due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiffs’ counsel attached the response and motion to file out of time that he
claims to have attempted to file on February 13, 2020 to the instant motion.
Discussion
Rule 60(b) motions are used as a vehicle to consider whether there was, in a
final order, some “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)
newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
2
Case: 4:17-cv-02456-HEA Doc. #: 92 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 843
released or discharged ...; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Here,
Plaintiffs claim reconsideration is warranted based on the excusable neglect of
counsel.
“Rule 60(b) ‘provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only
upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.’ ” Williams v. York, 891
F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th
Cir. 2008)). District Courts have “broad discretion” in determining whether to
reconsider judgment. Id. (quoting Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d
805, 807 (8th Cir. 2002)). As for “excusable neglect,” the Eighth Circuit has held:
The term “excusable neglect” in this context [Rule 60(b)(1)] is
generally “ ‘understood to encompass situations in which the failure to
comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence.’ ” Union
Pac. R.R. v. Progress Rail Servs. Corp., 256 F.3d 781, 782 (8th
Cir.2001) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507
U.S. 380, 394, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). To
be excusable, however, the neglect must be accompanied by a
showing of good faith and some reasonable basis for not complying
with the rules. Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir.1997).
Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005).
The Court finds no exceptional circumstances here that warrant
reconsideration. Plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable basis for failing to timely
respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and then also failing to verify that their
motion to file a response out of time was successfully filed to the Court. It is
necessarily the responsibility of counsel to ensure that all pleadings and
3
Case: 4:17-cv-02456-HEA Doc. #: 92 Filed: 07/21/20 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 844
memoranda are properly filed with the Court. Here, counsel’s repeated errors over
a period of six months cannot be considered excusable neglect. Id. (“It is generally
held that ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b) does not include ignorance or
carelessness on the part of an attorney.”)
Conclusion
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the facts surrounding their counsel’s
failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement amounted to
excusable neglect on his part within the meaning of Rule 60(b). The Opinion,
Memorandum and Order entered May 29, 2020 will not be altered or amended
under Rule 60(b). The Motion is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider,
[Doc. No. 88], is DENIED.
Dated this 21st day of July, 2020.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?