Pina v. United States

Background

Frederick D. Pina sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after an automobile accident involving a United States Postal Service vehicle. He sought $146 million in lost business profits, claiming that the accident prevented his wholly owned start-up beverage company, Japanese Juices, LLC, from pursuing a prospective contract with Delta Airlines. An earlier opinion and order dismissed that portion of his claim.

Pina later made multiple attempts to vacate, or undo, the dismissal. His April 1, 2022 letter relied on a March 16, 2019 letter from his former lawyer to the Postal Service. Pina argued that this earlier letter had adequately presented his lost-profits claim to the Postal Service before he filed the lawsuit. The court treated the April 1 letter as another motion under Rule 60(b), the federal rule allowing a court to provide extraordinary relief from a judgment or order.

Court’s Discussion

The order explained that two earlier challenges based on the same lawyer’s letter had failed. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer had ruled that, even if Pina had adequately presented the lost-profits claim to the Postal Service and had raised the issue on time, the claim would be subject to dismissal because the government had not waived its protection from lawsuits seeking damages for interference with contract rights. Judge Engelmayer later denied another request to vacate, finding that it presented no new or meritorious grounds.

Judge Moses stated that Rule 60(b) motions are disfavored and reserved for exceptional circumstances. She said that, if Pina did not withdraw the April 1 letter, it would be his fifth challenge to the dismissal and his third Rule 60(b) challenge based on the lawyer’s letter. The order warned that significant sanctions could be assessed if Pina pursued another request to vacate on that basis. The court did not impose sanctions in this order.

Orders and Effect

The court ordered the Assistant United States Attorney who would handle the matter during another attorney’s leave to file a notice of appearance. It also directed the parties to make their best efforts to schedule all anticipated depositions early, even if the depositions would occur in May or June.

The court gave Pina until April 21, 2022, to state by letter whether he would withdraw the April 1 motion. If he pursued the motion and the government opposed it, the court said he would have an opportunity to reply. The order did not grant or deny the April 1 motion. It also advised Pina to seek legal advice and stated that any continued motion could not include new argument about the requested relief. This was a procedural order concerning case management and a proposed request to undo an earlier ruling, rather than a final decision on the April 1 motion.