CARONTE v. CHIUMENTO et al
Filing
53
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/30/2019. (dmr)
[Dkt. No. 53]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
MICHAEL A. CARONTE,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 15-01828(RMB/KMW)
v.
OPINION
LT. ALBERT CHIUMENTO #3522;
LT. DAVID AMICO
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
By: Daniel B. Zonies, Esq.
1011 Evesham Road
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Counsel for Plaintiff Michael Caronte
REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C.
By: Thomas B. Reynolds; John J. Bannan
750 Route 73 South, Suite 202 A
Marlton, NJ 08053
Counsel for Defendants Lt. Albert Chiumento and Lt.
David D’Amico
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, United States District Judge:
In an Opinion and Order dated March 2, 2018, the Court
granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
[Dkt. No. 46]
Plaintiff Michael Caronte filed no opposition to that motion.
1
Plaintiff, apparently proceeding pro se 1, presently moves to
reopen the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
For the reasons
that follow, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff seeks to reopen this case thirteen months after
the Court’s Opinion and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment were issued. [Dkt. No. 50].
Plaintiff’s one-page
submission asserts that his former attorney, Daniel Zonies,
committed malpractice when he “didn’t even bother to tell
[Plaintiff] that this case was dismissed.” [Id.]
Defendants
oppose the motion, arguing that it is untimely and that
“Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support a finding that
the Court’s decision [on the merits of the summary judgment
motion] was erroneous.” [Dkt. No. 52].
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final
judgment for the following limited reasons:
(1)
1
Mistake,
neglect;
inadvertence,
surprise,
or
excusable
The docket reflects that Plaintiff is represented by Daniel
Zonies, Esq. However, Plaintiff, in his letter asking the Court
to reopen this case, refers to Mr. Zonies as his “former
attorney.” [Dkt. No. 50]
2
(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;
(4)
The judgment is void;
(5)
The judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6)
Any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In addition, pursuant to subsection
(c)(1), a motion “must be made within a reasonable time, and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of
judgment of order or the date of the proceeding.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); See also United States v. Fiorelli,
337 F.3d 282, 288 n.3 (3d Cir. 2003).
The District Court has “sound discretion” to grant or deny
relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), “guided by accepted legal
principles applied in light of all the relevant circumstances.”
Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 648 (3d Cir. 1981). “Rule 60(b) is a
provision for extraordinary relief and may be raised only upon a
showing of exceptional circumstances.” Mendez v. Sullivan, 488
F. App’x 566, 568 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curium) (citing Saawka v.
Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993)).
3
With respect to Rule 60(b)(6), which acts as a catch-all
provision, the Third Circuit requires that “[a] court may grant
a Rule 60(b) motion only in extraordinary circumstances, and a
Rule 60(b) motion is not appropriate to reargue issues already
considered and decided.”
Weber v. Pierce, No. 13-283, 2016 WL
2771122, at *2 (D. Del. May 13, 2016) (citations and footnote
omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1)
through (3), the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s
application is time-barred.
Such applications must be made
within one year; Plaintiff’s motion was filed 13 months after
the final judgment in this case.
Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s application as a
motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) 2, which permits a
District Court to exercise its discretion to set aside a final
judgement for “any other reason that justifies relief.”
However, the Third Circuit has stated that a party seeking
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “must demonstrate the existence of
‘extraordinary circumstances’ that justify reopening the
judgment.” Budget Blings, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 255 (3d
2
Nothing in Plaintiff’s application suggests that Rule 60(b)(4)
or (5) applies.
4
Cir. 2008).
A party must show that “without relief from the
judgment, an ‘extreme’ and ‘unexpected’ hardship will result.”
Id.
Plaintiff argues his counsel committed legal malpractice
because his counsel “didn’t even bother to tell [him] that this
case was dismissed.” [Dkt. No. 50]. 3
Liberally construed,
Plaintiff also appears to assert that had Mr. Zonies done his
job properly, Mr. Zonies would have submitted evidence in
opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that could have
changed the Court’s disposition of the motion.
Plaintiff’s one-page letter submission does not provide the
Court with sufficient details or evidence to allow the Court to
determine whether relief is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6).
IV.
3
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
To the extent Plaintiff may seek to reopen this case in order
to pursue a legal malpractice claim against Mr. Zonies, that
claim may not be litigated in this case because the alleged
legal malpractice does not arise out of the same set of facts as
this case, in which Plaintiff alleged constitutional claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his arrest on arrest
on May 3, 2013. Even if Plaintiff were to file a new complaint
with this Court, it would appear that the Court would lack
subject matter jurisdiction over any separately filed
malpractice suit, as legal malpractice is a claim arising under
state (rather than federal) law, and diversity of citizenship
appears to be lacking.
5
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
with prejudice.
The shall case remain dismissed
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
DATED: October 30, 2019
s/Renée Marie Bumb___
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?