Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical

Background

Ernest Edward Gaines filed this action without a lawyer. He had previously participated in a New York state-court class action involving Seroquel. He alleged that class counsel paid him less than the average reported settlement payout and that information about his later diabetes diagnosis should have resulted in greater compensation.

After giving Gaines multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, the court dismissed his Third Amended Complaint by an order dated August 28, 2024. The civil judgment was entered on the docket on September 3, 2024. Gaines gave a notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on September 19, 2024, and that notice was treated as filed on that date.

Rule 60(b) motions

On December 17, 2024, Gaines gave three motions to prison officials for mailing under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief.

Gaines argued that he should be allowed discovery to show inadequate representation by the class-action lawyers, that AstraZeneca’s headquarters were in New York and therefore supported federal diversity jurisdiction, and that his complaint should be treated as filed on an earlier date. The court stated that the motions were filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment.

Effect of the pending appeal

The court explained that a notice of appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed aspects of a case to the court of appeals. Because Gaines’s Rule 60(b) motions were not filed within 28 days after judgment, the pending appeal deprived the district court of authority to grant them. Under Rule 62.1, when a district court lacks authority to grant a motion because of a pending appeal, it may defer consideration, deny the motion, or state that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue if the court of appeals sends the matter back.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court denied the Rule 60(b) motions. It concluded that Gaines had not shown that any of the grounds in the first five parts of Rule 60(b) applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires a reason different from those listed in the first five parts and requires extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Gaines had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.

The court’s conclusion states: “Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 74-76) are denied.” The Clerk was directed to terminate all motions in the action. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.