The procedural history of this gun-rights case is strange, so strange that it resulted in the case being dismissed. The Court of Appeals reopens the case, making this the rare case where the district court abused its discretion and someone can open up a judgment under Rule 60.
The case is Passalacqua v. County of Suffolk, a summary order issued on March 1. A companion case, Lin v. County of Suffolk, was also issued on March 1 and has the same reasoning. All plaintiffs in this case handled the appeal pro se.
In February 2020, following a status conference, the trial court entered an order that closed the case, stating that the parties could move to reopen the case no later than August 20, 2020. While the case was administratively closed, the trial court accepted a motion from defendants to dismiss the case on the merits. In February 2021, the trial court sua sponte terminated all motions because plaintiffs had not timely moved to reopen the case. Plaintiff's motion under Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen the case was denied.
The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Walker and Livingston) reverses and finds for the plaintiffs. Rule 60 is the last resort when something goes wrong with your case. It allows the trial court to vacate the judgment and reopen the case for good cause and to avoid extreme hardship. But the trial court has discretion to grant or deny these motions. For most cases, the "abuse of discretion" is the kiss of death, as the standard for determining whether such abuse existed is broad and deferential to the trial court.
Rule 60 helps plaintiffs here because administrative closure (like the one entered in February 2020) is reserved for that rare case when other alternatives are impossible or would significantly interfere with the district court's operations. As it is not clear why the district court closed out the case in February 2020, plaintiffs' confusion about that maneuver constituted "extraordinary circumstances" requiring the trial court to reopen the case. You never see people winning their Rule 60 appeals in the Second Circuit, so savor this one and enjoy it for all it is worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment