Getting a trial court to rethink its prior decision is a steep climb. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kemp v. United States, issued June 13, 2022, makes achieving such outcomes easier in one sense, but more difficult in another.
In Kemp, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s catchall provision “any other reason that justifies relief.” The defendant’s substantive argument to the trial court was that it made a legal error.
First, the additional procedural difficulty: The trial court denied the defendant’s motion as untimely. The court determined that a challenge based on a purported legal error should be brought under Rule 60(b)(1)’s “mistake” provision, not Rule 60(b)(6). The court’s conclusion as to which is the operative subrule is crucial because all Rule 60(b) motions, including challenges raised under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6), must be brought “within a reasonable time”; but Rule 60(b)(1) motions are subject to the additional requirement that they must be filed within one year of the judgment from which the party is seeking relief. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ conclusions that Rule 60(b)(1) is the operative subrule—holding that a court’s “legal error” falls within the category of a “mistake.” Thus, the Supreme Court set up an extra hurdle to getting a trial court to admit it made a legal error because the high court held that any party seeking such a ruling has a hard-stop deadline of one year to file its challenge.
Second, the lower substantive bar: Despite finding that a legal error qualifies as a mistake, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s interpretation of Rule 60(b)(1)’s “mistake” provision as applying only to “obvious” legal errors. The Court explained that an “obviousness” requirement is contrary to the plain language of the rule and too difficult to administer. In rejecting the Government’s interpretation, the Supreme Court overruled the precedent in circuits that had adopted an “obvious legal error” standard. Thus, a party may now ground a Rule 60(b)(1) motion in any legal error, not only obvious legal errors.
Both the arguments raised and the timing of raising the arguments affect a litigant’s opportunity to overcome an adverse judgment. It is therefore essential that a party suffering an adverse judgment promptly seek assistance from counsel who has experience litigating cases with a post-judgment procedural posture.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
© 2023 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- Securities Law
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark Litigation
- Initial Coin Offering
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Stock Drop
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Securities Litigation
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Copyright Law
- Electronically Stored Information
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Business Process Improvement
- Cyber Insurance
- Employment Litigation
- Receivership Statute
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Quality Representation
- Construction Litigation
- Land Use & Zoning
- Statute of Limitations
- Federal Rule
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!