United States of America v. Siemens Industry, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:12-cv-01466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In United States v. Siemens Industry, Judge Carter denied Clifford Weiner’s requests to reopen the dismissed case because he did not show exceptional circumstances.
The ruling affects Clifford Weiner and the defendants by leaving in place the prior dismissal of the federal case and denying Weiner’s requests to reopen it.
What happened
In United States of America v. Siemens Industry, Clifford Weiner asked the court to reopen the case after it was dismissed because defendants were not served on time. He relied on two provisions of the federal rule governing relief from a final judgment.
Weiner argued that he reasonably believed the federal case was paused while a state-court case proceeded. The court said it had never ordered that pause and that Weiner could have sought clarification, an extension, or a formal pause during the nearly five-year delay.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied both requests. He ruled that Weiner had not shown good cause, excusable neglect, or the exceptional circumstances required to reopen the judgment, and the dismissal therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Siemens Industry, Inc. · No. 1:12-cv-01466
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
The court had previously granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of timely service on August 10, 2021. The Clerk then entered a judgment of dismissal. Clifford Weiner, identified in the opinion as the plaintiff-relator, moved for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), or alternatively under Rule 60(b)(6).
Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for another reason that justifies reopening a judgment. The court explained that Rule 60 relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances, highly convincing evidence, good cause for not acting sooner, and no undue hardship to the opposing party.
Rule 60(b)(1) ruling
Weiner argued that, after a December 11, 2015 order, he reasonably viewed the federal case as paused while a state-court case proceeded. The court rejected that argument because it had never entered an order pausing the federal case. The court also noted that, from the docket’s unsealing on August 26, 2019, until defendants moved to dismiss on November 4, 2020, Weiner did not ask the court to enter such an order. He also did not request an extension of the service deadline, clarification about the deadline, or a status conference during the nearly five-year period identified by the court.
The court acknowledged that the interaction between the Federal False Claims Act’s service provision and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was not clear. But it had previously based the dismissal on Weiner’s lack of good cause for failing to serve defendants. The court again found that his efforts to serve were severely delayed and that he had not shown reasonable diligence, excusable neglect, or highly convincing evidence supporting extraordinary relief. The court therefore denied the Rule 60(b)(1) motion.
Rule 60(b)(6) ruling
The court separately denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. It explained that reasons fitting within the more specific Rule 60(b)(1) provision generally cannot support relief under the broader Rule 60(b)(6) provision. Weiner identified mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect as his principal grounds, and the court had already rejected those arguments under Rule 60(b)(1).
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Weiner’s motions under Rule 60(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 88. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.