Dudley v. City Of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:18-cv-10015-AKH
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dudley v. City of New York, Judge Hellerstein denied Dudley’s motion to set aside summary judgment because counsel’s delay was not excusable neglect.
Galvin Dudley’s request to reopen the closed case was denied; the defendants’ earlier summary-judgment victory remained in place.
What happened
In Dudley v. City of New York, Galvin Dudley asked the court to undo its July 7, 2020 decision granting the defendants summary judgment. Dudley said his lawyer failed to submit video evidence because of work disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court said the request came one year later, the maximum period allowed for this type of request. It also said the lawyer remained responsible for making sure the evidence was submitted and for overseeing law-firm staff. The court concluded that these circumstances did not amount to excusable neglect.
Judge Hellerstein denied Dudley’s motion to set aside the earlier order and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The opinion did not reopen the case.
The detailed version
- Dudley v. City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-10015-AKH
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Nov. 9, 2021
Background
On July 7, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk to close the case. Summary judgment is a decision that resolves claims when the court determines there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. On July 7, 2021, Galvin Dudley moved under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside that order.
Dudley argued that his lawyer’s failure to submit a CD containing video evidence was excusable neglect. According to the motion, the video could have called witnesses’ testimony into question. Counsel attributed the failure to changes in the law firm’s working arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic, including her furlough and her mistaken belief that an office employee had mailed the CD to the court.
Legal standard
Rule 60(b) permits a court to provide relief from a final judgment or order in limited circumstances, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court explained that this is extraordinary relief available only in exceptional circumstances. In deciding whether neglect is excusable, courts consider prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether the moving party controlled it, and whether the party acted in good faith. The court said the reason for the delay is the most important factor and that courts in the Second Circuit generally are reluctant to treat attorney error as a basis for relief.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the circumstances fell well short of the exceptional circumstances required for Rule 60(b) relief. Dudley waited a full year to file the motion, which the court identified as the maximum allowable period. The court further held that counsel’s partial furlough during the pandemic did not remove her responsibility to ensure that evidence was properly submitted or to oversee law-firm employees working on the case.
The court therefore found that counsel’s failure to file the evidence by the applicable deadline was not excusable neglect.
Disposition
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Dudley’s motion to set aside the July 7, 2020 summary-judgment order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and the court stated that arguments would not be heard because the motion had been decided.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.