National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 94-1681
| Decision Date | 28 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1681,94-1681 |
| Citation | 47 F.3d 667 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN; 51st State National Organization for Women; Maryland National Organization for Women; Virginia National Organization for Women; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC, Incorporated; National Abortion Federation; Commonwealth Women's Clinic; Capitol Women's Center, Incorporated; Hillcrest Women's Surgi-Center; Metropolitan Family Planning Institute; Uptown Women's Clinic; Harold Johnson; Barbara Lofton; Cygma; Planned Parenthood of Maryland; Baltimore Women's Medical Center; Hillcrest Clinic--Baltimore; Metropolitan Family Planning; Metropolitan Family Planning Institute, I; Gynecare Center; Prince George's Reproductive Health Services; Planned Parenthood Metropolitan, Washington, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OPERATION RESCUE; Project Rescue; Randall Terry; Patrick Mahoney; Clifford Gannett; Michael McMonagle; Michael Bray; Jane Bray, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: John David Etheriedge, American Center for Law & Justice, Decatur, GA, for appellants. Rene Irene Augustine, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for appellees. ON BRIEF: Jay A. Sekulow, James M. Henderson, Sr., Byron J. Babione, American Center for Law & Justice, Washington, DC, for appellants. D. Jean Veta, Laurence J. Eisenstein, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC; Deborah Ellis, NOW Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, New York City, for appellees.
Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published per curiam opinion.
Operation Rescue and several individuals connected with that organization appeal from the district court's exercise of discretion in refusing to vacate a two and one-half year old judgment, which they failed to appeal, in circumstances where the motion to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) was filed over a year after the event giving rise to the motion. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a Rule 60(b) motion was untimely, we affirm.
In November 1990 the district court in Maryland issued a permanent injunction against Operation Rescue and several individuals, prohibiting them from blocking abortion clinics. The judgment was entered on the basis of a similar judgment entered a year earlier for similar conduct involving the same parties in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Maryland district court also found some of the defendants in contempt of court for violating a preliminary injunction entered in the case. On plaintiffs' application for attorneys fees, the district court awarded fees and costs in June 1991 in the amount of $15,832 in connection with the injunction proceeding and an additional $32,533 in connection with the contempt proceeding. The district court's judgment entering a permanent injunction, its order for contempt, and its awards of attorneys fees were not appealed.
Operation Rescue did, however, appeal the judgment in the Virginia case, and we affirmed. However, on January 13, 1993, the Supreme Court reversed. See Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). Thus, the judgment in the Eastern District of Virginia, which served as the underpinning for the Maryland judgment, was reversed.
More than a year after the Supreme Court's decision in Bray, Operation Rescue and other defendants filed a motion in the district court in this case for partial relief from the judgment because of the decision in Bray pursuant to Rules 60(b)(5) and (b)(6). They sought relief only from the $15,832 attorneys fees award attributed to plaintiff's success on the merits of the injunction claim. They did not seek to modify or vacate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina Alliance For Transp. Reform Inc v. United States Dep't Of Transp., 1:99cv134
...underlying judgment”). Rule 60(b) motions are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Nat'l Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Before consideration of the merits, a Rule 60(b) movant must generally satisfy three threshold conditio......
-
Molinary v. Powell Mountain Coal Co., Inc.
...or denying motions under Rules 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) is ultimately left to the court's discretion. See National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.1995). Molinary's request to reopen Count VI can be disposed of without even considering Rule 60(b). Since Molinary I......
-
In re Myers
...plausible excuse for ignoring the judgment of the district court . . . for some fourteen months . . . ."); Nat'l Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 668 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court's ruling that a Rule 60(b) motion was untimely because it was filed "over a year af......
-
In re Myers, Civil Action No. ELH-17-149
...excuse for ignoring the judgment of the district court . . . for some fourteen months . . . ."); Nat'l Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 668 (4th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court's ruling that a Rule 60(b) motion was untimely because it was filed "over a year after the ev......