Joe Fenison v. Birmingham Spring Service, Inc., et al. (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-04-3927)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/06/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 - 2010 2080023 Joe Fenison v. Birmingham S p r i n g Service, Inc., e t a l . 2080036 Birmingham S p r i n g S e r v i c e , Inc. v. Joe Appeals PITTMAN, Judge. from Fenison Jefferson Circuit (CV-04-3927) Court 2080023; 2080036 These c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e s a r i s e o u t o f an a c t i o n in the Jefferson ("the Circuit employee") employer, Court against three defendants: Birmingham S p r i n g S e r v i c e , A t t e n t a , Inc., the employer's administrator Attenta. i n June 2004 by Inc. Joe Fenison his former ("the employer"); workers' compensation ( " A t t e n t a " ) ; and S a r a h H a r g r o v e , brought insurance an e m p l o y e e o f In t h a t a c t i o n , the employee sought compensatory p u n i t i v e damages b a s e d upon t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a l l e g e d conduct in failing October 2000 on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s e a r l i e r w o r k e r s ' and wrongful t o a b i d e by a consent judgment e n t e r e d i n compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t the employer stemming f r o m a w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y to arm. the employee's right The trial court entered summary j u d g m e n t i n t h e a c t i o n i n f a v o r o f a l l d e f e n d a n t s a on J a n u a r y 14, 2008, and s t a t e d i n t h a t j u d g m e n t t h a t c o s t s were " t a x e d as p a i d . " Compare R u l e 5 4 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. when e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n therefor ("Except i s made i n a s t a t u t e , costs s h a l l be a l l o w e d as o f c o u r s e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y u n l e s s the c o u r t otherwise d i r e c t s On May 20, "). 2008, more t h a n f o u r months a f t e r the trial c o u r t h a d e n t e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t d i r e c t i n g t h a t c o s t s were t o be taxed as p a i d , the employer, Attenta, 2 and Hargrove filed a 2080023; 2080036 motion, pursuant to Rule 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., for relief f r o m t h e c o s t s p r o v i s i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t so as t o a w a r d them costs, including attorney fees, in the total amount $57,044.65; i n t h a t m o t i o n , the d e f e n d a n t s a v e r r e d t h a t had sought review of relief this expenditures order under file as subsequent i n January Rule 60(b)(6) well as to the invoices, entry 2008[] c l e a r l y because of t h i s showed t h a t cost to both p a r t i e s . " The motion was they thorough billing, court's this c o u l d have b e e n h a n d l e d much more e f f i c i e n t l y less "a of and final litigation and w i t h much accompanied by a t t a c h m e n t s p u r p o r t i n g t o be c o u r t - r e p o r t i n g and t r a n s c r i p t i o n bills from 2005 and 2006 and legal-services statements c o v e r i n g t h e p e r i o d f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2004 t h r o u g h J a n u a r y 2008. N i n e d a y s a f t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n was 2008, the defendants' trial Rule court 60(b) entered motion an in filed, order part and on May 29, granting the ordering the e m p l o y e e t o p a y c o s t s i n t h e amount o f $ 1 9 , 5 2 9 . 4 5 . On May trial 30, 2008, t h e e m p l o y e e t i m e l y moved t o v a c a t e t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , t h a t a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) was averring n o t an a p p r o p r i a t e p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e by which t o seek r e v i e w of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 3 2080023; 2080036 taxation of costs i n i t s January trial 2008, j u d g m e n t . The c o u r t d i d n o t , h o w e v e r , r u l e upon t h e e m p l o y e e ' s m o t i o n on o r b e f o r e A u g u s t been f i l e d , 28, 2008, w i t h i n 90 days of i t s h a v i n g and p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n was a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e n i e d . on 14, September 15, 2008, the that Notwithstanding that denial, trial court entered an order p u r p o r t i n g t o g r a n t the employee's motion. The e m p l o y e e f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on O c t o b e r 9, 2008, 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e a u t o m a t i c d e n i a l o f h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t motion t o v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as amended b y i t s May 29, 2008, o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n for relief from t h e J a n u a r y 1 4 , 2008, j u d g m e n t . T h a t a p p e a l was d o c k e t e d i n this On O c t o b e r a c o u r t as c a s e no. 2080023. presumptively petition reasonable time f o r seeking f o r an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , App. P., t h e e m p l o y e r challenging 15, 2008, see R u l e within review by 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus the v a l i d i t y o f t h e September 15, 2008, order p u r p o r t i n g t o g r a n t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s May 30, 2008, m o t i o n . p e t i t i o n was d o c k e t e d i n t h i s mero motu, consolidated this a c o u r t as c a s e no. 2080036. court ordered for briefing that purposes 4 t h e two and proceedings ordered that That Ex be the 2080023; 2080036 employer's mandamus p e t i t i o n w o u l d be t r e a t e d as i f i t were a " c r o s s - a p p e a l " from the judgment under r e v i e w . Because the employer's trial " c r o s s - a p p e a l " i s d i r e c t e d t o the c o u r t ' s most r e c e n t o r d e r , and may we a d d r e s s i t f i r s t . be r e s o l v e d s i m p l y , As we have n o t e d , t h e e m p l o y e e ' s motion s e e k i n g t o v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s amended j u d g m e n t was filed on May 2008. 30, 2008, b u t was n o t r u l e d upon b y A u g u s t R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., to 28, s t a t e s t h a t a postjudgment v a c a t e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., may motion not remain p e n d i n g i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r more t h a n 90 d a y s u n l e s s e i t h e r "the express consent of a l l the p a r t i e s " appears of r e c o r d or an order which any an of extension i s issued by a p p e a l o f the judgment would failure by the motion w i t h i n the such motion trial appellate lie; court to rule court under Rule upon a postjudgment as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 782 S e p t e m b e r 15, 2008, was 240-41 c o u r t ' s order of entered without j u r i s d i c t i o n 5 of period." So. 2d 237, 2 0 0 0 ) , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l to 59.1, p e r m i t t e d time " c o n s t i t u t e [ s ] a d e n i a l On t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Ex p a r t e D a v i d s o n , (Ala. the and was 2 0 8 0 0 2 3 ; 2080036 a nullity; thus, court to vacate We next c o u r t ' s May to tax as t o c a s e no. that void turn the d i r e c t the trial 1 employee's appeal from the trial 29, 2008, o r d e r a m e n d i n g i t s j u d g m e n t , i n r e s p o n s e the defendants' to to order. 2080036, we the May employee defendants. 2 Rule pertinent 20, 2008, R u l e 60(b) a p o r t i o n of 60(b), Ala. the R. m o t i o n , so as costs Civ. P., claimed by provides, to the in part: "On m o t i o n and upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , the c o u r t may relieve a p a r t y or a p a r t y ' s legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : (1) m i s t a k e , inadvertence, s u r p r i s e , or excusable n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h by due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 5 9 ( b ) ; (3) f r a u d ( w h e t h e r heretofore denominated i n t r i n s i c or extrinsic), m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) t h e j u d g m e n t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r j u d g m e n t upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d has been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e The e m p l o y e e , w i t h commendable c a n d o r , c o n c e d e s t h i s i s s u e , a v e r r i n g i n the statement of f a c t s of h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f t h a t h i s May 30, 2008, m o t i o n was "overruled by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w " p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 T h a t o r d e r , w h i c h c o n t e m p l a t e d "no f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s " t h e t r i a l c o u r t , amounts t o a f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t . in See R.E. G r i l l s , I n c . v. D a v i s o n , 641 So. 2d 225, 228 ( A l a . 1994). 2 6 2080023; 2080036 a p p l i c a t i o n ; o r (6) any o t h e r r e a s o n justifying r e l i e f from the o p e r a t i o n of the judgment. The m o t i o n s h a l l be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , and (3) n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was entered or taken." (Emphasis The added.) employee procedural trial posits vehicle court's Alabama t h a t by which taxation supports that costs. Alabama Supreme g r a n t i n g a motion, requested trial Court seek There 396 reviewed So. a l a b e l e d as a R u l e reexamination i s not is of the 60(b) Court rejected the a In C i t y of ( A l a . 1981), court's order had costs i n of that the c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e . Supreme from in motion, allocation proper authority 2d 692 trial a relief employee's p o s i t i o n . B i r m i n g h a m v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d , the 60(b) a p a r t y may of the Rule The A l a b a m a a p p e l l a n t ' s attempt to seek r e v e r s a l on t h e b a s i s t h a t R u l e 60(b) was n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r appellate although review; i n doing ostensibly one so, filed i t opined under that Rule the 60(b), motion, had in a c t u a l i t y b e e n a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e so as t o be c o g n i z a b l e under Rule 695-96. Subsequently, v. S c h u l t z , 412 So. 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. i n C i t y of Jasper C i v i l 2d 818 ( A l a . C i v . App. 7 396 So. 2d at S e r v i c e Board 1982), this court 2080023; 2080036 reversed an order i s s u e d by to grant a p a r t y ' s pro a trial c o u r t t h a t had purported se o r a l m o t i o n t h a t had b e e n presented more t h a n f o u r months a f t e r an a g a i n s t him; as having held procedural that device issue of could only motion. i n S c h u l t z , we taxing be 412 i n w h i c h we provide costs v. 60(b) which to and properly However, we c h a r a c t e r i z e d C i t y of a Rule costs," So. R e b e l O i l Co. by amended j u d g m e n t t a x i n g 2d a t motion Birmingham not a seek a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n we viewed ruled as that an the oral untimely proper of the motion Rule 59(e) 818-19. reached a seemingly P i k e , 473 So. construed "was costs contrary 2d 529 a request conclusion ( A l a . C i v . App. in 1985), t o amend a j u d g m e n t so as to f o r a lump-sum a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s -- an e l e m e n t o f as we e x p l a i n h e r e i n , R e b e l O i l c a s t s d o u b t upon t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of the we will -- trial as cognizable c o u r t ' s May assume that for seeking "In relief order to 29, Rebel p o r t i o n o f R u l e 60(b) under Oil correctly Because, i n other respects, determined i n a proper case, serve from the a l l e g e and p r o v e one 60(b). 2008, o r d e r may, obtain Rule that some as a b a s i s c o s t p r o v i s i o n s of a judgment. Rule 60(b) relief, the of the grounds i n the r u l e . " 8 movant must Briscoe v. 2080023; 2080036 Briscoe, 600 So. 2d 290, 292 ( A l a . C i v . App. added). In t h i s case, the defendants 1992) (emphasis delayed seeking relief u n t i l more t h a n f o u r months h a d e l a p s e d f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e judgment; t h u s , the d e f e n d a n t s ' motion 60(b) (5), was and (6) of the subsequent fall Rule that rule, which pertinent permit judgment, relief the based upon occurrence of e v e n t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d n o t have prospective that under c o g n i z a b l e , i f at a l l , under o n l y s u b s e c t i o n s (4), of voidness for relief application, o u t s i d e the itself. The justified under or other reasons five defendants' subdivision they d i d not contend justifying relief grounds enumerated i n Rule motion alleged (6), the t h a t the January that "catch-all" 14, 60(b) relief was provision; 2008, j u d g m e n t was v o i d o r t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t have p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n . We t h u s p r o c e e d t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s were e n t i t l e d to relief In Oil. under s u b d i v i s i o n our inquiry, In Rebel we (6) o f R u l e a r e g u i d e d by O i l , the p a r t i e s 60(b). our decision to a workers' i n Rebel compensation c l a i m e n t e r e d i n t o a s e t t l e m e n t o f t h a t c l a i m , and t h e court entered a judgment in September 1983 s e t t l e m e n t and d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s 9 approving trial the a t t o r n e y would 2080023; 2080036 be paid a 15% fee t o be compensation awarded. paid on a weekly basis from the I n November 1984, P i k e , t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y , f i l e d a m o t i o n , i n v o k i n g R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) as a u t h o r i t y , that sought provide based t o amend t h e f o r t h e payment o f t h e upon a J u l y 1983 opinion s u c h an award; t h e t r i a l the September relief discretion grant to judgment so attorney fee i n a lump sum court providing for of t h i s as to court granted that motion, prompting defendant to appeal. order granting 1983 was We concluded t h a t the t r i a l outside relief under the scope of t h a t subdivision (6) court's court's of 60(b): " I n o r d e r f o r r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) t o be a v a i l a b l e as a d e v i c e f o r r e l i e f f r o m j u d g m e n t , two p r e r e q u i s i t e s must be s a t i s f i e d . F i r s t , t h e m o t i o n must be b a s e d on some r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n t h o s e s t a t e d i n r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) t h r o u g h 6 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) , and s e c o n d , t h e r e a s o n u r g e d f o r r e l i e f must be s u c h as t o j u s t i f y r e l i e f . N e i t h e r p r e r e q u i s i t e i s s a t i s f i e d i n the case b e f o r e us. " I n Chambers C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s v. W a l k e r , 459 So. 2d 861 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) , a c a s e s i m i l a r t o t h e c a s e b e f o r e us, p l a i n t i f f s brought a r u l e 60(b)(6) motion for relief from j u d g m e n t on the grounds that p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l had m i s t a k e n the e f f e c t t h a t t h i s j u d g m e n t w o u l d have on any s u b s e q u e n t suit brought a g a i n s t the commission. P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a t he was unaware o f a p a r t i c u l a r l i n e o f c a s e s , and t h a t he w o u l d n o t have a g r e e d t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t h a d he b e e n aware o f t h o s e c a s e s . The supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s s t a t e d g r o u n d s 10 Rule 2080023; 2080036 f o r r e l i e f under r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) . Thus, p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d not seek r e l i e f under r u l e 60(b)(6) s i n c e the c a t e g o r i e s f o r r e l i e f u n d e r r u l e 60(b) a r e m u t u a l l y exclusive. " S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e c a s e a t b a r , P i k e was unaware o f a c a s e t h a t w o u l d have p e r m i t t e d him t o r e c o v e r h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s i n a lump sum. Due t o h i s own m i s t a k e and i n a d v e r t e n c e , Pike f a i l e d to request t h a t h i s f e e s be a w a r d e d i n a lump sum. Pike's m o t i o n t h u s shows g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f u n d e r r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , and he may not seek r e l i e f under r u l e 60(b)(6). Nor may he c h a r a c t e r i z e h i s m o t i o n as a 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n and t h e r e b y e s c a p e t h e f o u r month time l i m i t a t i o n of r u l e 60(b)(1). "However, P i k e c o n t e n d s t h a t r e l i e f i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) b e c a u s e he has shown s u f f i c i e n t aggravating circumstances justifying relief. The supreme c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f under r u l e 60(b)(1) g e n e r a l l y c a n n o t be valid grounds under rule 60(b) (6) unless sufficient a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t so as t o p e r m i t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o say t h a t the case i s p r o p e r l y w i t h i n 60(b)(6). "A p a r t y s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r r u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) has the burden of p r o v i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances and/or extreme h a r d s h i p or i n j u s t i c e s u f f i c i e n t to e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f . " P i k e a r g u e s t h a t i f t h e c o u r t does n o t d i r e c t t h a t h i s f e e s be p a i d i n a lump sum a s i z e a b l e p o r t i o n o f h i s f e e c o u l d be lost. Yet, Pike v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t on b e h a l f o f h i s c l i e n t and a g r e e d t o t h e manner o f payment o f h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s . ... P i k e w a i t e d more t h a n a y e a r a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d b e f o r e s e e k i n g t o s e t i t a s i d e . ... " P i k e p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the agreement t o settle t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y and must be assumed t o have a g r e e d 11 2080023; 2080036 to t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e w r i t t e n agreement p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e payment o f h i s f e e . No r e q u e s t was made o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h a t t i m e t o a w a r d a lump-sum fee. Rule 60(b)(6) ' i s not f o r the purpose of relieving a party from free, c a l c u l a t e d , and d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e s he h a s made. A p a r t y remains u n d e r a d u t y t o t a k e l e g a l s t e p s t o p r o t e c t h i s own interests.' The p a r t i e s have relied on t h e s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t f o r t h i r t e e n months. Had P i k e b e e n more d i l i g e n t i n d i s c o v e r i n g h i s l e g a l r i g h t s , he m i g h t have o b t a i n e d r e l i e f u n d e r r u l e 5 9 ( e ) o r 60(b)(1)." 473 So. 2d a t 531-32 To l i k e of Appeals (citations omitted). e f f e c t i s the decision of the United States f o r the Eleventh Circuit construing Court analogous f e d e r a l p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o u t e 1, Box 1 1 1 , 920 F.2d 788 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) . brought a forfeiture alleged t o have been d i s t r i b u t i o n business; the trial court I n R o u t e 1, t h e U n i t e d 3 action used against to facilitate the federal d i s t r i c t i n that case, entered December 1987 i n f a v o r o f t h e U n i t e d c o s t s w o u l d be t a x e d . a motion seeking a parcel an of States property illicit-drug- c o u r t , w h i c h was a final States judgment i n stating t h a t no I n A u g u s t 1988, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s forfeiture of a cost bond that filed had been Cases i n t e r p r e t i n g the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure are a u t h o r i t y f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure. B r a c y v . S i p p i a l E l e c . Co., 379 So. 2d 5 8 2 , 584 (Ala. 1980). 3 12 2080023; 2080036 posted by a claimant United States court construed 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , Fed. States. court In had the claimed the R. of property request C i v . P., as and reversing that a t o which bond unawareness; prior as the motion district pursuant to awarded the bond t o the judgment, the federal Rule United appellate reasoned: "The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e l y i n g on F.R.C.P. 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) as a b a s i s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' m o t i o n f o r p o s t judgment r e l i e f . That p a r t of Rule 60(b) a p p l i e s o n l y t o c a s e s t h a t do n o t f a l l i n t o any o f t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d i n p a r t s ( 1 ) - ( 5 ) of Rule 60(b). T h i s r e s u l t i s e v i d e n t from the R u l e ' s l a n g u a g e and s t r u c t u r e . " ' [ T ] h e v e r y c a s t o f t h e R u l e and the language of clause (6) indicate that this residual c l a u s e i s d e a l i n g w i t h matter not covered i n the p r e c e d i n g five clauses. F u r t h e r , t h e maximum t i m e l i m i t a t i o n ... t h a t a p p l i e s t o c l a u s e ( 1 ) , (2) and (3) w o u l d be m e a n i n g l e s s , i f a f t e r t h e ... p e r i o d had r u n t h e movant c o u l d be g r a n t e d r e l i e f under c l a u s e (6) for reasons covered by c l a u s e s ( 1 ) , (2) and ( 3 ) . ' "From t h e c a t e g o r i e s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' f a i l u r e t o r e q u e s t c o s t s as p a r t o f t h e j u d g m e n t can o n l y be c l a s s i f i e d as a m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e or n e g l e c t . "We d e c i d e t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t w a i v e d i t s r i g h t to f i l e a motion to tax c o s t s i n the face of a f i n a l j u d g m e n t w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t no c o s t s w o u l d be t a x e d . 13 the 2080023; 2080036 R u l e 5 9 ( e ) [ , F e d . R. C i v . P.,] p e r m i t s a l i t i g a n t t o move t h e c o u r t t o a l t e r o r amend a j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t e n d a y s . R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) [ , F e d . R. C i v . P.,] p e r m i t s a l i t i g a n t t o move t h e c o u r t w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e n o t t o e x c e e d one y e a r f o r r e l i e f f r o m a f i n a l judgment. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we have h e l d t h a t ' [ a ] f i n a l j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u l e 60(b) i s a n y j u d g m e n t t h a t i s an a p p e a l a b l e order.' Thus, t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s o n l y avenue o f r e l i e f , i f any e x i s t s , l i e s u n d e r Rule 60(b)(1). " "The g o v e r n m e n t ' s m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ... f a i l s b e c a u s e t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a s n o t shown t h a t t h e e q u i t i e s o f t h i s case warrant our reopening t h i s f i n a l judgment. R u l e 60(b) i s a r e m e d i a l r u l e t h a t 'should be l i b e r a l l y construed i n order t o do substantial justice.' This concern i s most c o m p e l l i n g when t h e c o u r t h a s n o t r e a c h e d t h e m e r i t s of t h e case. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e government c o n t e n d s t h a t i t s f a i l u r e t o move e a r l i e r t h a n e i g h t months a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t was excusable. The g o v e r n m e n t p r e m i s e s i t s e x c u s e on the f a c t t h a t i t d i d not r e a l i z e t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t h a d f i l e d a c o s t bond. This t o t a l l y misses the point. S i n c e t h e judgment i n c l u d e d t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t no c o s t s were t o be t a x e d , t h e g o v e r n m e n t was of on n o t i c _ f r o m t h e t i m e o f t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t i t was e c o s t s . The f a c t t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t not e n t i t l e d t o was unaware t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t h a d f i l e d a c o s t b o n d is irrelevant. Thus, t h e q u e s t i o n c o n f r o n t i n g t h i s c o u r t i s whether t h e government's f a i l u r e t o a t t a c k t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o c o s t s i s e x c u s a b l e . We conclude that i t i s not. II "We 'yield, equities judgment recognize that final judgments should i n appropriate circumstances, to the of t h e p a r t i c u l a r case i n order t h a t t h e might r e f l e c t the true merits of the 14 2080023; 2080036 cause.' However, a t t o r n e y n e g l i g e n c e o r o v e r s i g h t i s r a r e l y grounds f o r r e l i e f . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e U.S. Attorney's failure to understand the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment ... c a n n o t , e v e n u n d e r t h e most l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , q u a l i f y f o r r e l i e f under Rule 60(b)." 920 F.2d at 791-92 (emphasis added; footnote and citations omitted). In date this that case, the notwithstanding the trial court the be had entitled accrued entry t o an were entered "prevailing 5 4 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., to defendants on notice, from the i t s judgment, that (a) party" provisions of Rule t h e d e f e n d a n t s had b e e n d e t e r m i n e d a w a r d o f c o s t s , and (b) the defendants s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t s o f more t h a n $50,000 b e f o r e of that judgment. Despite d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t move t o a l t e r , that Civ. so P. as to warrant Further, they relief did not amend, o r v a c a t e under Rule move for the knowledge, the 59(e), relief the costs p r o v i s i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f judgment not that Ala. from R. the judgment w i t h i n the four-month p e r i o d w i t h i n w h i c h t h e y could have o b t a i n e d r e l i e f b a s e d upon s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f R u l e 60(b), the a p p r o p r i a t e s u b d i v i s i o n of t h a t r u l e a l l o w i n g r e l i e f based on m i s t a k e , than four inadvertence, months had or n e g l e c t . elapsed to 15 seek By w a i t i n g u n t i l more relief cost from the 2080023; 2080036 provisions of the t r i a l court's judgment so t h a t a motion s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r o n l y s u b d i v i s i o n (6) r e m a i n e d a s a v i a b l e p r o c e d u r a l v e h i c l e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s f o r e c l o s e d any r i g h t s t h e y might have h a d t o s u c h r e l i e f demonstrate -- b o t h R e b e l O i l a n d R o u t e that Rule 60(b)(6) r e l i e f 1 i snot a v a i l a b l e simply to c h a l l e n g e c o s t p r o v i s i o n s o f a judgment t h a t might p r o p e r l y have b e e n m o d i f i a b l e a t an e a r l i e r B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g conclude the t r i a l f a c t s and a u t h o r i t i e s , that the defendants had a l l e g e d and p r o v e d grounds under Rule 60(b)(6), R. C i v . P., f o r r e l i e f Thus, we a g r e e w i t h 29, court 2008, order from t h e judgment as t o c o s t s . t h e employee t h a t t h e t r i a l granting defendants i n their reversed. We instructions erred we must i n concluding Ala. that point. remand May the 20, relief 2008, t h e cause c o u r t ' s May requested motion i s due to the t r i a l t o be court t o v a c a t e b o t h t h e May 29, 2008, o r d e r S e p t e m b e r 15, 2008, o r d e r , by t h e with and t h e a n d t o r e i n s t a t e t h e J a n u a r y 14, 2008, j u d g m e n t . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 16 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.