Wallace v. Powell et al

Filing 1430

MEMORANDUM Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/24/13. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FLORENCE WALLACE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-286

v.
ROBERT J. POWELL, et al.,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

Defendants.
******************************************************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM CONWAY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0291

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, et al.,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

Defendants.
******************************************************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
H.T., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0357

v.
MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., et al.,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

Defendants.
******************************************************************************************************

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMANTHA HUMANIK,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0630

Plaintiff,
v.

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

******************************************************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAUL CLARK, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-0357

Plaintiffs,
v.

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, et al.,
Defendants.

*****************************************************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WAYNE DAWN, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-cv-2535

Plaintiffs,
v.

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

*****************************************************************************************************
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGELA RIMMER BELANGER, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-1405

Plaintiffs,
v.

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

MARK A. CIAVARELLA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court are the Motion for Rule 60 Relief to Confirm Timely Filing
of Proof of Claim on Behalf of Plaintiff and Class Member Brian Gyle (Doc. 1325) and the
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 18, 2013 Order denying the Petition for
Rule 60 Relief to Confirm Timely Filing of Proof of Claim on Behalf of Represented Plaintiff
and Class Member Dennis Fisher. (Doc. 1365.) For the reasons that follow, the motions
will be granted.
I. Background
On February 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order Conditionally Certifying Settlement
Class and Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement between Plaintiffs and Mericle
Defendants (the “Mericle Settlement”). (Doc. 1084). Pursuant to the terms of the Master
Settlement Agreement (the “MSA”), a plaintiff who intended to participate in the Mericle
Settlement had to complete a Proof of Claim form and submit it to the Claims Committee
on or before May 13, 2012. Ultimately, on December 14, 2012, the Court granted final
approval of the Mericle Settlement. (Docs. 1267; 1268.) Both Mr. Gyle and Mr. Fisher

3

assert that they timely submitted Proof of Claims forms in order to participate in the Mericle
Settlement. Yet, for some unknown reason, the Claims Committee never received their
forms.
With respect to Mr. Gyle, he received a copy of the Proof of Claim form from his
then-counsel, the Juvenile Law Center. Specifically, the Juvenile Law Center mailed a
packet to Mr. Gyle, which included a Proof of Claim Form, Legal Notice of Class Action
Settlement, and a pre-paid envelope addressed to the Claims Committee. Maria Gyle, Mr.
Gyle’s mother, assisted Mr. Gyle and his brother Wayne in the completion and submission
of their Proof of Claim forms. Maria Gyle also recalls driving to the United States Post
Office in Pittston, Pennsylvania on a Sunday prior to May 13, 2012 and sending both Mr.
Gyle and Wayne Gyle’s envelopes to the Claims Committee. The Claims Committee
received Wayne Gyle’s Proof of Claim form but not Mr. Gyle’s form. Mr. Gyle was unaware
that the Claims Committee did not receive his Proof of Claim form until his brother received
his settlement check. Mr. Gyle notes that in the past, his documents have been misfiled
with those of his brother, and Mr. Gyle believes that could have happened with regard to his
Proof of Claim form. As a result, Mr. Gyle seeks a Court Order to permit re-submission of
his Proof of Claim form for consideration by the Claims Committee.
As to Mr. Fisher, he received a copy of the Proof of Claim form from his counsel.
Thereafter, and prior to May 13, 2012, Mr. Fisher sent the completed Proof of Claim form
to the Claims Committee. According to Mr. Fisher’s counsel, before the May 13, 2012
deadline, he sent an email and list of Proof of Claims forms his clients submitted to the
Claims Committee, and the list indicated that Mr. Fisher had already sent his Proof of Claim

4

form. However, the Claims Committee did not receive Mr. Fisher’s Proof of Claim form.
The Claims Committee, though, never informed Mr. Fisher or his counsel that it had not
received his Proof of Claim form. Mr. Fisher only become aware that his Proof of Claim
form had not been received by the Claims Committee when he did not receive a distribution
following the final approval of the Mericle Settlement. Subsequently, Mr. Fisher submitted
a new Proof of Claim form to the Claims Committee. And, on February 15, 2013, Mr. Fisher
submitted a petition seeking a Court Order that the Claims Committee accept his Proof of
Claim form so that his claim could be evaluated and he could be awarded settlement
proceeds consistent with the Mericle Settlement.
On March 18, 2013, Mr. Fisher’s petition for relief was denied. In denying his
petition, it was noted that it was readily foreseeable that a mailed Proof of Claim form would
not be received by the Claims Committee, that all the funds available under the Mericle
Settlement were either distributed or already allocated, and it was equitable to hold the
settlement class members to the deadlines established for recovery from the Cash
Settlement Fund. (Doc. 1358.) Now, Mr. Fisher seeks reconsideration of the denial of his
Rule 60 petition. Specifically, Mr. Fisher argues that reconsideration is warranted to prevent
manifest injustice, to clarify a misunderstanding by the Court, and because of the availability
of new evidence. With respect to his claim of new evidence, Mr. Fisher notes that on March
18, 2013, Class Counsel filed a motion seeking this Court to pay a claimant from the
Holdback Fund “who properly made a claim and from whom the Claims Committee has in
its files a timely received Proof of Claim form which was inadvertently not processed due

5

to administrative error.” (Doc. 1356.)1 This, Mr. Fisher argues, is new evidence that his
Proof of Claim may not be in the files of the Claims Committee as a result of administrative
error. Additionally, in view of Class Counsel’s motion, Mr. Fisher insists that the settlement
proceeds have not all been distributed and/or allocated, and it would amount to manifest
injustice for his claim to be denied.
III. Discussion
Rule 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion
and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(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). Both Mr. Gyle and Mr. Fisher argue that they are entitled to relief
for “excusable neglect.”2
The test for “excusable neglect” is equitable, and requires a court to weigh the
1

The motion was granted on March 20, 2013. (Doc. 1364.)

2

Additionally, Mr. Fisher’s motion for reconsideration may be granted only if he
establishes at least one of the following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when
the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café, by Lou Ann, Inc., v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
6

“totality of the circumstances.” Welch & Forbes, Inc. v. Cendant Corp., 234 F.3d 166,
171 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. LP, 507 U.S. 380,
113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)). Whether a party’s neglect is excusable so as
to warrant Rule 60(b) relief requires consideration of “1) the danger of prejudice to the
other party; 2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; 3)
the reason for the delay-and whether it was within the movant's control; and 4) whether
the movant acted in good faith.” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Welch, 234 F.3d at 171). “The general purpose of Rule 60(b) . . . is to strike a proper
balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and
that justice must be done.” Boughner v. Secretary of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 572 F.2d
976, 977 (3d Cir. 1978).
Mr. Gyle’s motion for Rule 60 relief will be granted. First, the danger of prejudice I
previously cited in denying Mr. Fisher’s petition, the lack of available funds to pay these
claims, does not appear to exist in light of Settlement Class Counsel’s request to pay a
claim that was inadvertently not processed. Second, as to the length of delay, Mr. Gyle
sought relief within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, granting his motion will not
impact the proceedings as Class Counsel must accept updated addresses to re-send
Settlement Letters until July 19, 2013. (Doc. 1413.) Third, as to the reason for the delay,
while I previously found that this factor weighed against granting relief to Mr. Fisher
because it was foreseeable that the Claims Committee would not receive a mailed Proof
of Claim form, neglect “is not strictly limited to omissions by circumstances beyond the
control of the movant.” In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir.
2000). “Excusable neglect,” in proper cases, may include “the failure of claimants to
receive notice, illness, misrouted mail, intervening company name changes, or short
internal mail system delays.” Id. Although requiring a claimant to adhere to class

7

deadlines is eminently reasonable, Mr. Gyle has provided compelling circumstances- the
fact that his brother’s form was received and his was not despite being sent at the same
time- that the reason for delay weighs in favor of granting Rule 60 relief. Finally, there is
no reason to doubt that Mr. Gyle acted in good faith in seeking relief.
Consistent with this analysis, it is also necessary to grant Mr. Fisher’s motion for
reconsideration in order to prevent manifest injustice. Upon reconsideration of my prior
decision, I find that the applicable Rule 60(b) “excusable neglect” factors weigh in favor
of affording Mr. Fisher relief. As noted, the danger of prejudice factor no longer weighs
against Mr. Fisher in light of the request by Class Counsel to pay claims that were
inadvertently not processed. Moreover, in denying Mr. Fisher’s Rule 60 petition, I failed
to afford adequate weight to Mr. Fisher’s counsel’s efforts to ensure that his claims were
timely received by the Claims Committee. Thus, as with Mr. Gyle, Mr. Fisher’s
explanation for delay presents a compelling reason to find “excusable neglect” in his
case. Accordingly, reconsideration of the denial of Mr. Fisher’s petition is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Fisher’s motion for reconsideration and Mr. Gyle’s motion for Rule 60 relief
will be granted. The Claims Committee will be directed to accept and evaluate their
Proof of Claim forms.
An appropriate order follows.

June 24, 2013
Date

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

8