Tag Archives: Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)

District Court May Not Grant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion Solely Because Plaintiff Failed to Oppose It, Holds Fourth Circuit

In Guzman v. Acuarius Night Club LLC, No. 24-1555 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026), the Fourth Circuit holds that “failing to oppose a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion is not a sufficient ground for a court’s concluding that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Plaintiffs are “professionalContinue reading “District Court May Not Grant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion Solely Because Plaintiff Failed to Oppose It, Holds Fourth Circuit”

Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That Curing a Pleading Deficiency Is Not “Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Excusable Neglect” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), But the Catchall Rule 60(b)(6) Can Apply

In Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., No. 22-4 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2023), a 2-1 panel holds that the district court erred as a matter of law in applying Rule 60(b)(1) for post-judgment relief to a plaintiff’s motion seeking to reopen a case to correct a pleading deficiency, and abused its discretion by not applyingContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Holds That Curing a Pleading Deficiency Is Not “Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Excusable Neglect” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), But the Catchall Rule 60(b)(6) Can Apply”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Does Not Apply to Pleadings Filed in State Court and Then Removed by the Defendant, Holds First Circuit

In Guaetta & Benson, LLC v. McArdle, No. 22-1034 (1st Cir. Oct. 28, 2022), the First Circuit reversed Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions, holding as a matter of law that Rule 11 did not apply to complaints filed in state court and then removed to federal court. “On February 7, 2017, Nicholas Triantos suedContinue reading “Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Does Not Apply to Pleadings Filed in State Court and Then Removed by the Defendant, Holds First Circuit”