Banga v. Chris Gus Kanios

Background

Navjeet Singh Banga sued John F. Kennedy University, National University, Chris Gus Kanios, Dean Barbieri, and Eleanor Armstrong. He asserted disability-discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, related claims under California law, and a breach-of-contract claim. Banga alleged that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his major depressive disorder and social anxiety disorder, causing him to fail out of the John F. Kennedy University College of Law.

The university provided Banga with extra exam time, permission to stand and walk during exams, priority registration, multimedia textbooks, and a private room for exams. He nevertheless received failing grades and was academically disqualified. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The court ruled that Banga had not shown that he would have met the academic-eligibility requirements with the requested accommodation, dismissed his Americans with Disabilities Act claim for mootness, rejected his derivative California claims, and rejected his contract claim for lack of persuasive evidence.

Motion to Set Aside the Judgment

Banga moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), Rule 60(d)(3), and Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(3) permits relief from a judgment because of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Rule 60(d)(3) addresses fraud on the court, and Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for other reasons that justify reopening a final judgment, including extraordinary circumstances.

Banga alleged that Professor Kanios falsely testified that Banga received no credit in a legal research and writing course. Banga argued that the course was not year-long and that his transcript lacked a course notation rather than showing a “no credit” grade. Banga also argued that President Bean falsely testified that he requested a private exam room only one day before an exam, even though a document showed an earlier request.

Court’s Reasoning

The court held that the challenged testimony did not affect the disposition of Banga’s claims. The court resolved the claims through the defendants’ motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c), using only the evidence from Banga’s case-in-chief. Because the allegedly false testimony was presented during the defendants’ case, it did not prevent Banga from fully and fairly presenting his case and did not establish the kind of injustice required for relief under Rule 60.

The court also explained that its discussion of Banga’s legal research and writing grade was alternative reasoning. The claims would have failed even without the defendants’ evidence. Other evidence also supported the court’s findings, including testimony that Banga’s exam accommodations were sufficient and Banga’s own earlier statements attributing his poor performance to anxiety, panic, and exam software problems.

The court further found that Banga had not established perjury. At most, Professor Kanios’s testimony appeared to be a mistake, and Banga could have challenged it with his transcript. As to President Bean, Banga offered only conjecture that she knowingly made a false statement because the accommodation request was not made to her.

Disposition

The court denied Banga’s motion to set aside the judgment. It granted the defendants’ motion to lift the stay regarding the bill of costs. The court also stated that the defendants’ evidentiary objections were moot.