Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., K-MART
| Decision Date | 26 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-3309,K-MART,91-3309 |
| Parties | Gayle AUCOIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.APPAREL FASHION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert P. Cuccia, Pullaro & Cuccia, Houma, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Rodney A. Seydel, Jr., Hoffman, Sutterfield, Ensenat & Bankston, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Gayle Aucoin appeals an order dismissing her complaint against K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corporation for failure to prosecute and an order denying reinstatement of her case. Finding no jurisdiction to review the original order dismissing the complaint, and no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to reinstate the case, we affirm.
After slipping and falling in a K-Mart store in Houma, Louisiana, Gayle Aucoin filed this action against K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corporation in a Louisiana state court on June 6, 1989. K-Mart later removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. On February 16, 1990, the district court below granted Aucoin's motion to substitute Leonard Radlauer as counsel of record. Several months later, on April 6, 1990, the district judge held a preliminary conference. In a minute entry the same day, the district court scheduled a final pre-trial conference for October 5, 1990, and the trial for October 22, 1990.
On August 28, 1990, Radlauer filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The district court granted the motion on October 5, 1990, the day initially scheduled for the final pre-trial conference. Several days later, on October 10, 1990, the court entered an order continuing the final pre-trial conference and trial because Aucoin was unrepresented by counsel. The court also specifically ordered that Aucoin appear personally before the court on October 31, 1990, warning that a failure to appear "will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of the case." The order was mailed to Aucoin personally.
Despite the warning, Aucoin failed to appear at the October 31 status conference. The district court accordingly dismissed her complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute the same day and entered judgment for K-Mart on November 1, 1990.
Aucoin eventually found new counsel, Robert Cuccia. Cuccia filed a motion to reinstate the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) on December 24, 1990. The district court denied the motion for lack of standing on January 18, 1991, because Cuccia had not yet enrolled as counsel. The court subsequently permitted Cuccia to enroll as counsel, but denied a second motion to reinstate the case on March 6, 1991. In denying the motion to reinstate, the court reasoned that Aucoin had not shown the "exceptional circumstances" required by Rule 60(b). Aucoin filed a notice of appeal on April 5, 1991. She now challenges both the order dismissing the complaint and the order denying the motion to reinstate the case.
We note at the outset a jurisdictional defect in Aucoin's appeal. The district court entered judgment against Aucoin on November 1, 1990. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), Aucoin then had thirty days to file a notice of appeal. This Aucoin failed to do. Instead, Aucoin filed two motions to reinstate her case, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the first several weeks after the expiration of the thirty-day appeals period. Her Rule 60(b) motions did not suspend or extend the appeals period. See Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Phillips v. Insurance Company of North America, 633 F.2d 1165, 1167 n. 4 (5th Cir.1981). Accordingly, while this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the second Rule 60(b) motion, we cannot review the original order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.
In Vela v. Western Elec. Co., 709 F.2d 375, 376 (5th Cir.1983), we stated that an appellate court "may not treat the appeal from the ruling on the rule 60(b) motion as an appeal from the [underlying order] itself." Vela reflects a concern that the availability of a Rule 60(b) motion not vitiate the requirement of a timely appeal; although the period within which a Rule 60(b) motion may be filed is longer, our review of a Rule 60(b) motion is narrower in scope that our review of direct appeals. See Phillips, 633 F.2d at 1167. The movant must show "unusual or unique circumstances justifying such relief," and she may not use Rule 60(b) as "an avenue for challenging mistakes of law that should ordinarily be raised by timely appeal." Pryor v. U.S. Postal Service, 769 F.2d 281 (5th Cir.1985). This court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion only for abuse of discretion. Id.
We believe that Pryor controls this case. In Pryor, as here, the district court dismissed a plaintiff's complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huddleston v. Whelan (In re Whelan)
...2005). Thus, the scope of review under Rule 60(b) is narrower than it would be in a direct appeal. Aucoin v. K–Mart Apparel Fashion Corp. , 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir.1991). It allows a trial court to "correct obvious errors or injustices," Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir.1977), b......
-
Brown v. U.S., A-11-CA-155 LY
...suits for want of prosecution. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 (1962); Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8-9 (5th Cir. 1991); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). "The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been consi......
-
Taylor v. Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office
...2008); Raborn v. Inpatient Management Partners, Inc., 278 Fed. Appx. 402, 404-05, 2008 WL 2073880, *2 (5th Cir. 2008); Aucoin v. K-Mart, 943 F.2d 6 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's dismissal for failure to prosecute of the slip-and-fall case of a plaintiff who failed to appear as or......
-
Magee v. Kent
...App'x 638, 639 (5th Cir. 2008); Raborn v. Inpatient Management Partners, Inc., 278 F. App'x 402, 404-05 (5th Cir. 2008); Aucoin v. K-Mart, 943 F.2d 6, 8-9 (5th Cir. 1991) (upholding trial court's dismissal for failure to prosecute the slip-and-fall case of a plaintiff who failed to appear a......