Lawtone-Bowles v. U.S. Bank National Association

Background

Nicole Lawtone-Bowles, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought the action against U.S. Bank National Association, Select Portfolio Servicing, Steven J. Baum, P.C., and Phinoah N. Brown. The court had directed her to explain why she had not served U.S. Bank, Select Portfolio Servicing, and Baum within the required period and to say whether she wanted to continue against them. The court warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice against those defendants and could also result in dismissal against Brown.

After receiving no response, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against U.S. Bank, Select Portfolio Servicing, and Baum for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a separate order, the court granted Brown’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and terminated the action. Judgment was entered the same day.

Motion under Rule 60(b)

Lawtone-Bowles moved for relief from the judgment. Although she described the filing as a motion for reconsideration, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 60(b) because of the leniency generally given to filings by people without lawyers. Based on her arguments, the court analyzed the motion under Rule 60(b)(1), which permits relief from a final judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

For excusable neglect, the court considered the danger of prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the plaintiff’s control, and whether she acted in good faith. The court explained that the reason for the delay was the most important factor and that Rule 60(b) relief requires highly convincing evidence of exceptional circumstances.

Court’s Analysis

Lawtone-Bowles said she received an email confirmation showing that her response to the order to show cause had been accepted. The court reviewed that email and found that it warned her that an electronically submitted document would appear on the docket within two business days if it met filing requirements. The email also stated that, if the document did not appear within two business days, she had to submit it to the court in paper form.

The court concluded that Lawtone-Bowles did not act diligently after her response failed to appear on the docket. It found no reason to doubt her good faith in filing the Rule 60(b) motion, and it found that the delay in making that motion was about one month. But the court determined that the reason for the original filing failure weighed clearly against her. It also stated that her status as a self-represented litigant did not excuse compliance with procedural rules, particularly because the court considered her experienced in litigation in that district.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the Rule 60(b)(1) motion. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion sequence at docket entry 35.