Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation

Background

Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Balchem Corporation and the other named defendants in 2017. On March 23, 2021, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. That earlier order also assessed costs against Kamdem-Ouaffo for failing to appear at an October 13, 2020, court-ordered deposition and directed Defendants to document their reasonable related expenses.

Defendants later requested $13,469.75 for deposition-related attorney’s fees and expenses. Kamdem-Ouaffo filed a response, which the court treated as opposition to that request.

Rule 60 Motions

Kamdem-Ouaffo filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6), seeking relief from the January 29, 2020 order, the May 11, 2020 order, and the dismissal order. Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes or oversights so that an order accurately reflects what the court decided. The court construed Kamdem-Ouaffo’s reference to Rule 60(a)(6), which does not exist, as a motion under Rule 60(a).

The court denied the Rule 60(a) motion because Kamdem-Ouaffo did not identify a clerical mistake, oversight, or omission in the earlier orders. The court stated that the motion instead appeared to be based on his disagreement with the court’s rulings and dismissal of his complaint.

The court also denied the Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6) motions. It found the motions untimely as to the January 29, 2020 and May 11, 2020 orders. The court did not decide whether the ten-month delay concerning the dismissal order was unreasonable because the motions failed for other reasons. Kamdem-Ouaffo did not show an exceptional circumstance, a substantive mistake of fact or law, or a jurisdictional or due-process defect that would make the dismissal order invalid. The court also found no extraordinary circumstance supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Fees and Expenses

Defendants’ counsel requested $12,872.00 in attorney’s fees and $597.75 in expenses for work associated with the deposition. The court found the expenses reasonable. It found that 35 hours of preparation by two partners was unreasonable and unnecessary, however, and reduced the attorney’s-fee award to $10,000.00.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order DENIES Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motions under Rules 60(a) and (b) for relief from the three earlier orders. It awards Defendants’ counsel $10,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $597.75 in expenses, and directs Kamdem-Ouaffo to pay $10,597.75 within 21 days of the order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the specified pending motion sequences.