DeJesus v. Rudolph

Background

Alex DeJesus filed this action without a lawyer on May 14, 2019. After the court directed him to file an amended complaint, pro bono counsel entered an appearance and filed an amended complaint in December 2019.

In April 2020, Stephanie Rudolph and the Commission of Human Rights moved to dismiss the amended complaint. DeJesus did not file an amended complaint, oppose the motion, or request more time by the original deadline. The court ordered him to take one of those steps and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The court later extended the deadline and then issued another order giving DeJesus until July 17, 2020, while again warning that noncompliance would lead to immediate dismissal.

DeJesus did not comply with the July deadline or the earlier orders. On July 20, 2020, the court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Motion for Reconsideration

DeJesus filed a motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2020, more than two months after the dismissal. He filed the motion without a lawyer. He asserted that his attorney, Peter Saad, had initially led him to believe that he had a valid claim and later told him the case was weak and should be dismissed without prejudice. DeJesus also said he believed Saad would represent him and file an amended complaint. He referred to a possible conflict of interest and submitted correspondence acknowledging a complaint about attorney misconduct.

The court noted that the correspondence did not identify Saad and was dated more than six months before Saad entered the case. The court also noted that DeJesus did not claim he lacked notice of the court’s orders or explain why he did not ensure that a response was filed after his attorney missed the first deadline.

Court’s Analysis

Local Civil Rule 6.3 generally requires a reconsideration motion to be served within 14 days after the relevant order or judgment. DeJesus filed his motion 71 days after the dismissal. The court held that the motion’s untimeliness alone was enough to deny it.

The court nevertheless considered whether relief was justified. Because the motion was untimely, the court treated it as a request for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Under Rule 60(b)(1), relief may be available for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Under Rule 60(b)(6), relief may be available for another reason that justifies it, but the court explained that this requires extraordinary circumstances.

The court found that DeJesus’s general allegations that his attorney misled him did not provide the highly convincing evidence required for relief under Rule 60(b). It also stated that a client generally bears the consequences of the acts or omissions of an attorney the client voluntarily selected, including the attorney’s failure to understand court rules or manage the case effectively. The court further found that DeJesus had not shown the exceptional attorney incompetence or extraordinary circumstances needed for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), particularly because he had been in contact with Saad in June 2020 and did not explain why he did not direct Saad to respond or seek another lawyer.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied DeJesus’s motion for relief from the order dismissing his case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 27 and mail a copy of the order to DeJesus, who was proceeding without a lawyer when he filed the motion.