Scarborough v. Allied Universal Security Services, Systems and Solutions, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-02037
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Scarborough v. U.S. Security Associates, Judge Cote denied Scarborough’s request to reinstate his dismissed action.
Bernard Scarborough’s effort to reopen and pursue his dismissed action was affected; the court left the December 13, 2019 dismissal undisturbed.
What happened
In Scarborough v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., the court considered Bernard Scarborough’s request to reopen his dismissed case. His attorneys had withdrawn after reporting that he had stopped communicating with them, and the court had directed him either to obtain new counsel or file paperwork to proceed without a lawyer.
Scarborough did not file the required paperwork by the deadline, and the action was dismissed. He later asked the court to set aside the dismissal, saying he did not know he needed to file a notice to proceed without a lawyer and complaining about his former attorneys’ services.
The court denied the request because Scarborough did not comply with the court’s orders or maintain communication with the court, and he did not show the exceptional circumstances required to reopen the judgment. Judge Denise Cote also concluded that the requested relief was not justified under the applicable rule.
The detailed version
- Scarborough v. Allied Universal Security Services, Systems and Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02037
- Denise Cote
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
Bernard Scarborough’s attorneys, Christopher Mason and Locksley Wade, moved to withdraw during fact discovery after an unsuccessful mediation. They stated that Scarborough had stopped communicating with them and that, as a result, they could not meet discovery obligations or otherwise prosecute the case.
The court granted the withdrawal request on November 12, 2019. That order required any new lawyer to file a notice of appearance by December 6. If no lawyer appeared, Scarborough was required to complete and mail a form stating that he would proceed without a lawyer. The order warned that failing to submit the required notice and proof that it had been served on the defendant could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court record states that a copy of the order was mailed to Scarborough’s last known address.
No notice was filed by Scarborough or new counsel by the deadline, and the action was dismissed on December 13, 2019. Scarborough filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2020. On March 10, 2020, he moved under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and reinstate the action so he could pursue his claims without a lawyer. He complained primarily about his former attorneys and said he had not told them that he no longer wanted their representation. He also said he did not know he needed to file a notice to proceed without a lawyer.
The March 10 filing was Scarborough’s first correspondence with the court. It did not explain why he had not communicated earlier or state whether he had received the November 12 order. The court then ordered him to explain whether he had received it and warned that failing to respond could lead to denial of his motion. The opinion states that Scarborough did not file the requested explanation, seek an extension, file a notice of appearance, or otherwise communicate with the court.
Rule 60 Analysis
Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or another reason that justifies relief. The court explained that this is an extraordinary remedy available only when the moving party shows exceptional circumstances. It also noted that courts generally are reluctant to grant relief based on attorney error, although attorney disappearance or mental illness may sometimes support relief when the party diligently tried to contact the attorney.
The court held that Scarborough had not shown the diligence or exceptional circumstances needed to vacate the December 2019 dismissal. His failure to follow the November 12 and March 13 orders and his failure to maintain communication with the court were additional grounds for denying relief.
Disposition
The court denied Scarborough’s March 10, 2020 motion. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.