Daane v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

Background

Carole Daane sued Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Postal Fleet Service, Inc., and Melvin Allen, alleging that they were responsible for a negligent rear-end collision involving her vehicle. The opinion states that Ryder had since been dismissed from the action. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Daane had not shown a serious injury under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) or a causal connection to the collision. Ryder also filed an individual summary-judgment motion under the Federal Transportation Act. Daane separately moved for summary judgment on liability.

Daane did not respond to the defendants’ motions or reply to their response to her motion. On February 9, 2022, the court issued an opinion and order resolving the three summary-judgment motions and granting summary judgment to the defendants. Daane’s counsel later said they had intended to oppose the motions, were unaware that the motions were about to be decided, and believed there was no clear response deadline. After a conference, the court allowed Daane to file the motion addressed in this opinion.

Arguments for Reconsideration

Daane sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which permits relief from an order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Her attorneys argued that their failure to respond should be excused because they believed no deadline applied, intended to respond, communicated with the defendants, and had called the court’s chambers for guidance.

The court rejected that argument. It held that the Southern District of New York’s Local Rules clearly required opposition papers within 14 days after service of the motion and reply papers within seven days after the opposition. If more time was needed, counsel could have requested an extension by letter motion. The court concluded that counsel’s failure resulted from ignorance of the applicable rules and that such ignorance generally does not constitute excusable neglect.

The court also found that relying on the chambers telephone call was unreasonable because the judge’s Individual Rules required communications with chambers to be made by letter motion except in extremely rare urgent situations. The court emphasized that attorneys appearing in the district had certified that they were familiar with the Local Rules.

The court considered the other factors relevant to excusable neglect as well. Reopening the summary-judgment briefing after the court had already analyzed the existing arguments and evidence would give Daane a guide to the court’s analysis and would prejudice the defendants. Nearly a year had passed between the filing of the motions and Daane’s contact with the court, and reopening the briefing would cause further delay and duplicated work. The court also questioned the diligence of Daane’s counsel because they had not contacted the court during that period.

Daane separately invoked Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for other reasons that justify it in extraordinary circumstances. The court held that this provision could not be based on the same excusable-neglect arguments raised under Rule 60(b)(1), and that Daane had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

Daane also relied on Local Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule 56. Local Rule 6.3 permits reconsideration when the court overlooked matters or controlling decisions. Rule 56 governs summary judgment. The court held that neither rule provided a basis for reopening the case because Daane had failed to make the arguments when she had the opportunity to do so. It further held that reconsideration is not a chance to present evidence or arguments that could have been submitted before judgment. The court stated that its earlier summary-judgment decision had not relied only on Daane’s failure to respond; it had independently considered whether the defendants met their burden.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Daane’s motion for reconsideration and reargument. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 112. The parties were directed to file a status letter within 21 days after the opinion’s date stating whether they wished to pursue settlement or request a conference to set a trial date. The opinion also states that Daane may be able to seek some relief for forfeited claims through a malpractice suit.