Ward et al v. Warren et al, No. 4:2018cv00069 - Document 48 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/21/2019. (mlh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICq U.& DIST.CG IRT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED 2C'l'2 12219 JU IN THE U NITED STA TES D ISTRICT COU RT BY: FOR TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DA NV ILLE DIVISION UDLEM ERK L K JAN IS W ARD,etal., CivilActionN o.4:18CV 00069 Plaintiffs, M EM OR AND UM O PINION ROBERT W ARREN ,eta1., By:H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. Janis W ard, Lori Berrios, M elanie Belote, and Am ie H odges Young filed this action against the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, the Board of the Pittsylvania County Departm entof SocialServices,and m ultiple individualdefendants,asserting a variety ofclaim s related to theiremploym entw ith the Departmentof SocialServices. The defendants m oved to dismiss the plaintiffs'amended complaintunderRule 12(b)(6). Approximately two weeks before the hearing on the defendants' m otions,the plaintiffs,by counsel,m oved to voluntarily dismisstheaction withprejudice. Thecourtgrantedthemotionon March 6,2019. W ard and Berrioshave since requested reconsideration on the basisthatthe m otion for voluntary dism issal w as filed w ithoutthe plaintiffs'consent. The courtconstrued the requestas a m otion for relief from judgmentunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure60(b).TV motionhasbeenfully briefed and isripe forreview . Forthe follow ing reasons,the m otion w illbe denied. Rule60(b)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurepermitspartiesto seek relieffrom a Ward et al v. Warren et al Doc. 48 finaljudgment, order, or proceeding. çG-f' he reniedy provided by the Rule, however, is extraordinary and is only to be invoked upon a show ing of exceptional circum stances.'' Comptonv.Alton S.S.Co..608F.2d96,102(4thCir.l979).ToobtainreliefunderRule60(b), themovingpartiesmustfirstshow (1)thatthemotion istimely,(2)thattheyhaveameritorious Dockets.Justia.com claim ordefense,and(3)thattheopposingpartieswillnotsufferunfairprejudiceifthejudgment issetaside.UnitedStatesv.Welsh,879F.3d530,533(4thCir.2018).Themovingpartiesmust alsosatisfyoneofsixenumeratedgroundsforreliefsetforthinRule60(b).Id.Thesixgrounds areasfollow s: (l)mistake,inadvertence,surprise,orexcusableneglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in tim e to move for a new trial underRule59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), m isrepresentation,orm isconductby an opposing party; (4)thejudgmentisvoid; (5)thejudgmenthasbeen satisfied,released,ordischarged;itis basedonan earlierjudgmentthathasbeen reversedorvacated;or applying itprospectively isno longerequitable;or (6)anyotherreasonthatjustifiesrelief. Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b). Upon review ofthe record and the parties'arguments,the courtconcludesthatW ard and BerriosarenotentitledtoreliefunderRule60(b).First,WardandBerrioshavefailedtogivethe courtreason to believethatvacating the dism issalorderw illnotbe an em pty exercise. See Bovd v.Bulala,905F.2d764,769(4thCir.1990)(dunderalltheprovisionsofRule60(b),athreshold condition for granting the relief isthatthe m ovantdem onstrate thatgranting that reliefw illnot end in the end have been a futile gesm re,by show ing that she has a m eritorious defense or c1aim.''). Thedefendantspreviously identifiedmultipledeficienciesintheirrespectivemotions todismissunderRule 12(b)(6). Thedefendantsciteto thesamedeGcienciesinresponsetothe pending m otion. ln reply,W ard and Berrios emphasize thatthey are Sçnotw illing to give up on (their)case.''Reply 1,Dkt.No.46.However,theymakenoefforttodemonstratethattheyhave ameritoriousclaim againstanyofthenameddefendants.Consequently,theirRule60(b)motion fails on this threshold ground. See Team sters.Chauffeurs.W arehousem en & Helpers Union. LocalNo.59 v.Sùoerline Transp.Co..953 F.2d 17,21 (1stCir.1992) (1Glf a conclusory allegation thataclaim ismeritoriousdoesnotsufficeto satisfy theRule60(b)precondition,: fortiori,theabsenceofanyallegationisinadequatetothatend.'')(emphasisinoriginal). The courtalso concludesthatthe pending motion failsto satisfy the requirem ents forany ofthe six groundsforrelieflisted in Rule 60(b). Ward and Beniosarguethattheirattorney ' m oved to dism iss the case w ithout their perm ission, and that they should not bear the consequences of the attorney's unilateral decision. Even assum ing the truth of this factual assertion,such conduct on the partofplaintiffs'counseldoes notprovide a sufficientbasis for reliefunderRule60(b).ç$AsboththeSupremeCourtand(theUnited CourtofAppealsforthe Foul'th Circuitlhaveconsistently recognized,apartyvoluntarily chooses(her)attorney as(her) representativein theaction,and,thus,(she)cannotlaterCavoid theconsequencesoftheactsor om issionsofthisfreely selected agent.''' Robinson v.W ix Filtration Corp.LLC,599 F.3d 403, 409(4thCir.2010)(quoting Linkv.W abashR.R.Co.,370U.S.626,633-34 (1962:;see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993) (emphasizing that ttclients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys').Thisistrueeven ifthemovingpartiesSsmighthavebeen lessthanfully informed, know ledgeable and active participants in the decisionm aking process.'' M ccurrv v.A dventist Health Svstem/sunbelt Inc.,298 F.3d 586,595 (6th Cir.2002);see also UniversalFilm Exchanees.Inc.v.Lust.479F.2d 573,576 (4th Cir.1973)(holding thatcounsel'sCtdeliberate decision notto enteran appearance or file an answ erenum erating his client's defenses''did not justifyreliefunderRule60(b)(1));lnreVioxxProds.Liab.Litia.v.Merck& Co.,509F.App'x 3 383,386(5thCir.2013)(findingunpersuasivetheplaintiff'sargumentthatSsdismissalofhiscase resulted from his counsel's unresponsiveness and noncom pliance w ith courtorders,and that he should notbearthe consequencesofhisattorney'salleged incompetence'). W hilethisresult m ay seem harsh w hen view ed solely from a client's perspective, tcit has long been held, particularlyincivillitigation,thatthemistakesofcounsel,who isthelegalagentofIherjclient, are chargeable to the client,no m atter how tunfair'this on occasion m ay seem .'' Pryorv.U .S. PostalServ.,769F.2d281,288(5thCir.1985)(citationomitted). Forthesereasons,themotionforrelieffrom judgmentunderRule60(b)willbedenied. The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthis mem orandum opinion and the accom panying orderto W ard,Berrios,and a1lcounselofrecord. DATED :ThisQ lR day ofoctober, 2019. SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge
]]>
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.
