Moton v. Park Christian School

Background

Jaedan and Alonzo Moton alleged that Park Christian School and its principal, Chris Nellermoe, racially discriminated against them by requiring academic contracts for Jaedan’s admission. On March 29, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Motons had not established jurisdiction or provided evidence of discriminatory intent.

The Motons then moved for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which covers mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason that justifies it. They relied on what they described as their former lawyer Kevin Duffy’s grossly negligent and incompetent representation, including missed deadlines, an untimely response to summary judgment, and failure to engage in written discovery.

The defendants separately sought $123,934.50 in attorney fees and $2,502.28 in taxable costs for defending the Motons’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Relief from Judgment

The court denied the Motons’ Rule 60(b) motion. It held that Duffy’s carelessness and inadequate representation did not qualify as excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). The court also held that the Motons could not use Rule 60(b)(6) to raise the same grounds presented under Rule 60(b)(1), and that, in any event, the alleged inadequate representation did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

The court stated that Rule 60(b) is not a way to obtain relief from an attorney’s incompetence or to reargue the case’s merits. It noted that the Motons had other possible recourse concerning Duffy’s representation.

Attorney Fees

The court denied the defendants’ request for attorney fees. Although prevailing defendants in a § 1981 case may recover fees when the claims are frivolous, vexatious, or brought to harass or embarrass, the court found that the Motons’ claims did not meet that standard. The court explained that losing at summary judgment did not, by itself, make the claims unreasonable or baseless.

Costs

The court granted the defendants’ request for costs in part and denied it in part. It denied the requested $40.00 in clerk fees because the defendants did not provide sufficient documentation. It awarded $1,686.00 for deposition transcripts because the Motons did not show that the depositions were unnecessary or purely investigative.

For witness costs, the court used $547.92 as the documented baseline rather than the requested $776.28, excluding undocumented costs for a witness’s May 7 attendance. It also excluded $395 in private process-server fees, which are not taxable costs, and awarded $162.92 in remaining witness costs. The total costs awarded were $1,848.92.

Disposition

The court denied the Motons’ motion for relief from judgment. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for attorney fees and costs: attorney fees were denied, and costs were awarded in the amount of $1,848.92.