Fiorilla v. Citigroup Inc.

Background

On October 4, 2022, then-counsel Paul Batista filed a notice voluntarily dismissing John Leopoldo Fiorilla’s action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court held that the notice was effective when filed and deprived the court of jurisdiction over the matter. The opinion states that the notice was filed by Mr. Batista, who had apparent authority to act for Fiorilla.

The court understood that Batista’s representation had ended and treated Fiorilla as representing himself. Fiorilla then filed a letter explaining why, in his view, the action should be allowed to proceed. Although the letter did not identify a specific rule, the court construed it as a request for relief from the dismissal under Rule 60(b).

Rule 60(b) request

The court assumed, without deciding, that it had authority to reopen a case after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. It concluded that the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b) did not apply, leaving only Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for any other reason that justifies it. Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and granting relief is within the district court’s discretion.

Reasoning

The court found no extraordinary circumstances. The dismissal notice referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11’s safe-harbor provision, which allows a lawyer to avoid certain sanctions by withdrawing a challenged filing. Batista had signed Fiorilla’s complaint, and the complaint was the subject of a proposed sanctions motion. The court found that withdrawing the complaint was a reasonable way for Batista to use the safe harbor. Reopening the case with that complaint as the operative pleading could have left Batista exposed to potential sanctions.

The court also found that relief was not warranted as a matter of discretion. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Fiorilla could refile the action. The court noted that the defendants had argued that the claims might already be barred by statutes of limitations, meaning the dismissal did not appear to materially change Fiorilla’s position on that issue. The court also believed Fiorilla might need time to find successor counsel rather than having the court reopen the case and impose litigation deadlines.

Disposition

Judge Woods denied Fiorilla’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The case therefore remained dismissed without prejudice and closed on the court’s docket. The opinion states that Fiorilla was not barred from filing an additional action merely because of this dismissal, but any new complaint would need to be signed by Fiorilla or new counsel and would remain subject to Rule 11 and potential sanctions.