Williams v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. & 1199 Seiu Health Care Workers E., 12 CV 1881 (SJ) (VVP)

• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
• Writing for the Court: JOHNSON, Senior District Judge
• Parties: VIRLYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER and 1199 SEIU HEALTH CARE WORKERS EAST, Defendants.
• Docket Number: 12 CV 1881 (SJ) (VVP)
• Decision Date: 02 July 2018

VIRLYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER and
1199 SEIU HEALTH CARE WORKERS EAST, Defendants.

12 CV 1881 (SJ) (VVP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 2, 2018

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APPEARANCES

LAW OFFICE OF LOCKSLEY O. WADE, LLC
11 Broadway
Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
By: Locksley O. Wade
Attorney for the Plaintiff

CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP
420 Lexington Avenue
Suite 420
New York, NY 10170
By: Scott M. Wich
Attorneys for Defendant
Lutheran Medical Center

LEVY RATNER, P.C.
80 Eighth Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
By: Richard L. Dorn
Attorneys for Defendant
1199 SEIU Health Care Workers East

Page 2

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Virlyn Williams' motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Dkt. No. 45, Pl.'s Mem.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Lutheran Medical Center ("Lutheran") employed Plaintiff as a Senior Nursing Assistant from July 21, 1999 to July 1, 2010. (See Compl. ¶ 8.) On July 1, 2010, Lutheran fired her. (Id. ¶ 12.) In the letter of termination, Lutheran stated that it fired Plaintiff for providing inadequate help to a patient and then intimidating her when she complained. (See Compl. Ex. 1 at 1-3.) Plaintiff responded by asking her labor union, Defendant 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East ("SEIU"), to file a grievance challenging her termination under the applicable bargaining agreement. (See Compl. ¶ 13.) SEIU pursued her grievance until arbitration, at which point it refused to go any further. (Id.) Plaintiff pursued administrative appeals until October 17, 2011, when SEIU informed her that the appeals board had upheld the union's decision not to arbitrate the termination. (Id. ¶ 14.)

On April 16, 2012, Plaintiff, through her then-attorney Joel M. Gluck, filed the instant action, alleging, inter alia, unlawful employment practices and breach of the duty of fair representation. (Id. ¶ 1.) On June 7, 2012, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky entered an order scheduling the initial conference for August 21, 2012,

Page 3

requiring all parties to make initial disclosures no less than five days before the conference. (See June 7, 2012 DE.) Gluck sought and received adjournment of the initial conference, which was rescheduled for October 4, 2012. (See Dkt. No. 3 & Aug. 16, 2012 DE.) For unexplained reasons, Gluck failed to appear. The Magistrate ordered him to provide initial disclosures by October 12, 2012 or face sanctions. (See Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate's order. On October 18, 2012, Defendants made a motion for sanctions. (See Dkt. Nos. 12 & 13.) The Magistrate granted the motion for sanctions on November 5, 2012 and ordered Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures by November 12, 2012, warning that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of her claim. (See Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff did not provide the disclosures, and Defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on November 16 and 19, 2012. (See Dkt. Nos. 17 & 18.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motions. On December 10, 2012, the Magistrate recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 19, the "Report".) Plaintiff did not file any objections within the required time frame, and on January 9, 2013, this Court adopted the Report and dismissed the case with prejudice. (See Dkt. Nos. 21 & 22.)

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed an affidavit seeking restoral of her case, stating that Gluck did not inform her that her case was in default. She claimed she did not learn that her case was dismissed until August of 2014, when she retained a different attorney, Locksley O. Wade. (See Dkt. No. 24, Pl.'s Aff. ¶ 2; see also In re

Page 4

Gluck, 114 F. Supp. 3d 57, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).) On December 15, 2016, Wade filed the instant Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. (See Dkt No. 45.) Defendants filed motions in opposition in January 2017. (See Dkt. Nos. 46 & 47.)

DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

"On motion and on just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)

...