Bell v. Iozzo

Background

Renzer Bell brought this action without a lawyer and was initially allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and alleged that, under a contract, the defendants had to pay him $1,080 for facilitating the sale of an automobile and $75,000 in liquidated damages if the contract was breached.

The court later learned that, in a prior related proceeding, Bell’s fee-waiver status had been revoked after the court concluded that his allegation of poverty was untrue. The earlier court had reviewed records indicating that Bell was a trustee of two trusts holding Florida properties and had not disclosed those interests in his fee-waiver application. In this case, Bell again did not mention those real-estate assets in response to a question asking about property or other valuables, including items held in someone else’s name. The court therefore ordered him to explain why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked for misstating his assets in bad faith.

Bell did not respond to that order. On July 17, 2023, the court revoked his fee-waiver status and gave him 30 days to pay the $402 filing fee. Bell then moved to undo that order or, alternatively, to receive more time, stating that he had not received the court’s orders and that he had meritorious defenses.

Rule 60(b) Motion

The court treated Bell’s submission as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from an order for reasons including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of a judgment, or another reason justifying relief.

Bell relied on excusable neglect, arguing that he did not respond because he had not received the order requiring him to explain his financial disclosures. The court noted that Bell was responsible for providing a current address and could consent to electronic service, but it nevertheless granted relief.

Ruling

The court granted Bell’s motion and vacated the July 17, 2023 order revoking his fee-waiver status. It directed Bell to respond within 30 days to the June 12, 2023 order requiring him to explain why that status should not be revoked. Bell must also provide his current address.

The court did not make a final ruling in this order on whether Bell’s allegation of poverty was untrue or whether he acted in bad faith. It stated that the action will be dismissed if Bell does not respond or if his response is insufficient. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.