Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionattorneyappealmotioncivil rightsdue processcivil procedure
attorneyappealmotiondue processappellantappellee

Related Cases

Simon v. KPMG LLP, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806
View Case »
United States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 2022 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9862
View Case »
Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 376
View Case »
Opdyke v. Kent Liquor Mart, Inc., 40 Del.Ch. 316, 181 A.2d 579
View Case »
Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F.2d 161, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1601, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1606
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 907

Facts

The case stems from two civil rights actions where the plaintiffs sought to invoke pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims. The appeals were taken after the district court denied various postjudgment motions aimed at reopening the long-closed Roslindale case. The plaintiffs argued that they were deprived of property or liberty without due process, but the court found that a name-clearing procedure was available to them under state law.

The appeal in Limerick is in a somewhat different procedural posture.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the postjudgment motions were timely and whether the plaintiffs were deprived of a liberty interest without due process.

The main argument on the merits can be summarized as follows: Roslindale involved a deprivation of property or liberty without due process.

Rule

The court applied the rules regarding postjudgment motions under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the importance of timeliness and the availability of state procedures for due process.

Motions under Rule 60(b)(1),(2) or (3) the motion must be made within one year.

Analysis

The court determined that the postjudgment motions were untimely, as they were filed well beyond the allowed time frames. Even if they had been timely, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a deprivation of due process since a name-clearing procedure was available to them under state law. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' arguments reflected a misunderstanding of the case and federal law.

Thus, no matter how we construe appellants' post-judgment motions, they were untimely and the district court would have abused its discretion only by granting them.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the postjudgment motions were untimely and that the plaintiffs had not been deprived of due process. The court also imposed attorney fees against the plaintiffs' counsel for filing frivolous appeals.

For all of the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the district court in 83–1842.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants, as the court affirmed the district court's rulings and found the plaintiffs' appeals to be frivolous.

The Roslindale appeal is as clear a case of a frivolous and vexatious appeal as can be imagined and we therefore award the appellees attorney's fees to be paid by appellant's counsel personally.

You must be