Indiana Law Update Blog - Price Waicukauski & Riley Legal Blog

Party Can Appeal After an Order Denying a Rule 59(e) Motion from a Denial of 60(B) Relief

February 4, 2011

Earlier this week, we told you about a case demonstrating that courts don't like it when people ignore legal proceedings. Today, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in The York Group, Inc. v. Wuxi Taihu Tractor Co., Ltd., 632 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2011), Case No. 10-1266, which demonstrates this once again. However, the interesting aspect of this case is not the substance, but the Court's discussion of appellate procedure, namely, its discussion of whether an appeal from an order denying a Rule 59(e) motion from a denial of Rule 60(b) relief is timely. The Court's conclusion is that it was.

more..

less..
In this case, the plaintiff in a case in a Texas district court sought to serve a subpoena on a non-party in Illinois. That individual never responded to the subpoena, was found in contempt, and the plaintiff was awarded a money judgment against him. Once the plaintiff obtained an order garnishing the non-party's checking account, he responded to the subpoena by filing a Rule 60(b) motion. The district court found that he was properly served with the subpoena and that this was the only issue he could raise in the 60(b) motion. The non-party then filed a motion under Rule 59(e), asking the district court to reconsider. The district court denied this motion, as well.

On appeal, the Court sua sponte raised the issue of whether an appeal from the denial of the 59(e) motion was timely. It noted that Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) defers the time for appeal until the district judge has acted on a timely post-trial motion, but that this Rule "refers to a single post-judgment motion. A second or successive post-judgment motion does not affect the time for appeal." The appellant in this case filed two post-trial motions, the Rule 60(b) motion and the Rule 59(e) motion.

If they are treated as successive, then the notice of appeal must be dismissed as untimely, because Benefield did not appeal within 30 days of either the contempt order or the decision denying the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate that order.

A motion under Rule 60(b) has a property that makes it inappropriate to treat Benefield's two motions as successive. A Rule 60(b) motion does not suspend a judgment's finality unless filed within 28 days of its entry. A motion filed later does not affect the time to appeal the judgment but is treated as initiating a new proceeding whose decision is independently final and appealable. A timely Rule 59 motion following this new final judgment then operates as Rule 4(a)(4) specifies and defers the time for appeal.

The court then went on to discuss how the district court did not err when finding that the non-party was properly served.

This opinion highlights two important procedural points: (1) an order on a 60(b) motion is its own final judgment and should be treated as such for the purposes of appeal, and (2) Appellate Rule 4(a)(4) will only allow one timely filed post-trial motion to defer the time for filing an appeal; successive post-trial motions will not defer the time for filing an appeal.

Lessons:

An order on a 60(b) motion is its own final judgment.
Appellate Rule 4(a)(4) will only allow one timely filed post-trial motion to defer the time for filing an appeal; successive post-trial motions will not defer the time for filing an appeal.
A timely 59e) motion after a 60(b) motion will defer the time for appealing the 60(b) order, but not the underlying order.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here

TAG 7th Circuit, Appellate Jurisdiction, Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b)

Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/134

◀ PREV : [1] : .. [216] : [217] : [218] : [219] : [220] : [221] : [222] : [223] : [224] : .. [352] : NEXT ▶

Party Can Appeal After an Order Denying a Rule 59(e) Motion from a Denial of 60(B) Relief

Indiana Law Update

Recent posts

Archive

Calender