Paije Cerwinske v. Cambrex Charles City

Eighth Circuit

Paije Cerwinske v. Cambrex Charles City

310 F. App'x 55

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2009

Docket07-3117

StatusUnpublished

This text of 310 F. App'x 55 (Paije Cerwinske v. Cambrex Charles City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paije Cerwinske v. Cambrex Charles City, 310 F. App'x 55 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paije DeAnn Cerwinske appeals the district court’s 1 denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion after the adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (abuse of discretion will be found only when district court’s judgment was based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions). The district court properly applied the appropriate factors to determine whether the neglect or noncompliance in the instant matter was excusable. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liability Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866-67 (8th Cir.2007) (listing factors announced in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); fourth Pioneer factor — reason for delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of movant— is most important). The record also did not support Cerwinske’s assertion that she had a meritorious defense to the summary judgment motion. See Feeney v. AT & E, Inc., 472 F.3d 560, 562-63 (8th Cir.2006) (recognizing additional factor).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Paije DeAnn Cerwinske appeals the district court’s 1 denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion after the adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (abuse of discretion will be found only when district court’s judgment was based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions). The district court properly applied the appropriate factors to determine whether the neglect or noncompliance in the instant matter was excusable. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liability Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866-67 (8th Cir.2007) (listing factors announced in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); fourth Pioneer factor — reason for delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of movant— is most important). The record also did not support Cerwinske’s assertion that she had a meritorious defense to the summary judgment motion. See Feeney v. AT & E, Inc., 472 F.3d 560, 562-63 (8th Cir.2006) (recognizing additional factor).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F. App'x 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paije-cerwinske-v-cambrex-charles-city-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack