Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Background

Aftern Sanderson sued his employers for discrimination and retaliation. He represented himself at a five-day jury trial, while the defendants were represented by lawyers. The jury rejected Sanderson’s discrimination claim but found for him on retaliation claims against two corporate defendants. Each corporate defendant was ordered to pay $25,000 in compensatory damages, and the court later awarded $24,328.77 in economic damages against Leg Apparel and Amiee Lynn jointly, along with the jury’s compensatory damages. Judgment was entered on March 1, 2024.

Sanderson appealed, challenging several trial evidentiary rulings, limits on his testimony, objections during questioning, an alleged conversation involving defense counsel, and other matters. On July 8, 2025, the Second Circuit denied the appeal. It specifically upheld the district court’s handling of certain evidence and cross-examination and stated that Sanderson’s remaining arguments lacked merit.

Rule 60(b) motion

On August 13, 2025, Sanderson moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6) to obtain relief from the judgment. He challenged the exclusion of a New York State Division of Human Rights probable-cause determination, the exclusion of psychiatric evaluations and treating-provider testimony, alleged discovery obstruction, the exclusion of habit evidence, and delays concerning damages, equitable relief, and summary-judgment issues. In his reply, he added arguments concerning transcript access, the verdict form, alleged affidavit inconsistencies, excessive objections, mediation, pro bono assistance, racial prejudice, and what he called structural prejudice.

Rule 60(b)(1) covers mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Rule 60(b)(2) covers newly discovered evidence. Rule 60(b)(3) covers fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. A motion under those provisions must be filed no more than one year after the relevant judgment, order, or proceeding. Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision available only when the other specified grounds do not apply, and it requires extraordinary circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that nearly all of Sanderson’s arguments fell under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(3). His challenges to evidentiary rulings, trial management, and the entry of judgment were alleged judicial mistakes under Rule 60(b)(1). His allegations concerning discovery obstruction and inconsistent defense affidavits were alleged opposing-party misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3). The court held that the one-year deadline for those provisions was March 1, 2025, one year after judgment. Because Sanderson filed his motion on August 13, 2025, the court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) as untimely. The court also ruled that the pending appeal did not extend that deadline.

The court separately considered the arguments that Sanderson presented under Rule 60(b)(6). It held that the district court could not use Rule 60(b)(6) to alter the Second Circuit’s rulings on issues raised during the appeal. It also held that Sanderson’s lack of daily trial transcripts did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Finally, the court ruled that the difficulty of representing himself against experienced opposing counsel, including the difference in the number of successful objections, did not justify reopening the case. The court noted that Sanderson had been offered pro bono counsel but declined that assistance.

Disposition

The court denied Sanderson’s Rule 60(b) motion in full. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Sanderson a copy of the order.