US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD

D. New Jersey

US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD

DecidedJuly 25, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00589

StatusUnknown

This text of US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD (US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD, (D.N.J. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAMBERS OF U.S. COURTHOUSE ZAHID N. QURAISHI 402 EAST STATE STREET, ROOM 4000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TRENTON, NJ 08608

July 22, 2022 LETTER OPINION Re: US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORP. v. MAMAOIL EOOD, et al. Civil Action No. 21-00589 (ZNQ)(LHG) ________________________________

Dear Counsel: This matter comes before the Court by Plaintiff US Health and Hospital Supply Corp. (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Continue the Case. (ECF No. 9.) The substance of Plaintiff’s motion is relatively straightforward: it contends, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), the Court reinstate its previously dismissed Complaint because it was “attempting to locate some of the unserved Defendants.” (Id. at 7‒ 9.) Plaintiff further contends were the Court to reinstate the Complaint, Defendants will not be prejudiced. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff’s motion to continue the case was filed in response to a prior Order for Dismissal the Court entered. (ECF No. 8.) The Court’s prior Order dismissed the Complaint under L. Civ. R. 41.1(a) for inactivity. (Id.) Having reviewed the action to reinstate carefully, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the motion with prejudice. “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances, including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). “Rule 60(b)(6) provides a catchall provision, permitting relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Nonetheless, a party seeking relief under this catchall provision “must demonstrate the existence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that justify reopening the judgment.” Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). To meet this standard, the circumstances “must show that the movant was faultless in the delay.” Gallagher v. Farm Fam. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 14-2533, 2016 WL 158520, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016) (citing Pioneer Inv. Serv's. Co. v. Brunswick Ass's Ltd. Partnership. 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)). “[E]xtraordinary circumstances rarely exist when a party seeks relief from a judgment that resulted from the party's deliberate choices.” Budget Blinds, Inc., 536 F.3d at 255; Atkinson v. Middlesex Cnty., 610 F. App'x 109, 112–13 (3d Cir. 2015). The “extraordinary circumstances” requirement rule is in place “in order to balance the broad language of Rule 60(b)(6).” Id. A party may not use Rule 60(b)(6)’s catchall provision to “escape the consequences” of their decisions. Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 274 (3d Cir. 2002).

Here, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient justification for it to overturn its dismissal of the case. Plaintiff’s sole reason for the delay—that it was attempting to locate unserved defendants— does not meet the high standard set under Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff’s rationale falls outside the bounds of “extraordinary circumstances” the Third Circuit described. Budget Blinds, Inc., 536 F.3d at 255. From the Court’s perspective, Plaintiff was not faultless in the delay. Gallagher, 2016 WL 158520, at *2. The reason Plaintiff professed for the delay seems, in part, attributable to Plaintiff’s fault because it could have sought to find the unserved Defendants earlier. Moreover, Plaintiff did not prosecute its case for over ninety days, and, on June 29, 2021, the Court entered a notice of call for Plaintiff to prosecute its case or risk dismissal. (ECF No. 7.) Thereafter, Plaintiff failed to respond, and the Court dismissed its case without prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) Months after the Court’s dismissal, Plaintiff sought to reinstate its case with reasons that are less than compelling. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Motion to Continue the Case will not be granted. The Court hereby DISMISSES this matter WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to mark this case CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. _s_/ _Z_a_h_id_ _N_._ Q__u_ra_i_s_h_i____________ ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

CHAMBERS OF U.S. COURTHOUSE ZAHID N. QURAISHI 402 EAST STATE STREET, ROOM 4000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TRENTON, NJ 08608

July 22, 2022 LETTER OPINION Re: US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORP. v. MAMAOIL EOOD, et al. Civil Action No. 21-00589 (ZNQ)(LHG) ________________________________

Dear Counsel: This matter comes before the Court by Plaintiff US Health and Hospital Supply Corp. (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Continue the Case. (ECF No. 9.) The substance of Plaintiff’s motion is relatively straightforward: it contends, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), the Court reinstate its previously dismissed Complaint because it was “attempting to locate some of the unserved Defendants.” (Id. at 7‒ 9.) Plaintiff further contends were the Court to reinstate the Complaint, Defendants will not be prejudiced. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff’s motion to continue the case was filed in response to a prior Order for Dismissal the Court entered. (ECF No. 8.) The Court’s prior Order dismissed the Complaint under L. Civ. R. 41.1(a) for inactivity. (Id.) Having reviewed the action to reinstate carefully, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the motion with prejudice. “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances, including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). “Rule 60(b)(6) provides a catchall provision, permitting relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Nonetheless, a party seeking relief under this catchall provision “must demonstrate the existence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that justify reopening the judgment.” Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). To meet this standard, the circumstances “must show that the movant was faultless in the delay.” Gallagher v. Farm Fam. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 14-2533, 2016 WL 158520, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016) (citing Pioneer Inv. Serv's. Co. v. Brunswick Ass's Ltd. Partnership. 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993)). “[E]xtraordinary circumstances rarely exist when a party seeks relief from a judgment that resulted from the party's deliberate choices.” Budget Blinds, Inc., 536 F.3d at 255; Atkinson v. Middlesex Cnty., 610 F. App'x 109, 112–13 (3d Cir. 2015). The “extraordinary circumstances” requirement rule is in place “in order to balance the broad language of Rule 60(b)(6).” Id. A party may not use Rule 60(b)(6)’s catchall provision to “escape the consequences” of their decisions. Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 274 (3d Cir. 2002).

Here, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient justification for it to overturn its dismissal of the case. Plaintiff’s sole reason for the delay—that it was attempting to locate unserved defendants— does not meet the high standard set under Rule 60(b)(6). Plaintiff’s rationale falls outside the bounds of “extraordinary circumstances” the Third Circuit described. Budget Blinds, Inc., 536 F.3d at 255. From the Court’s perspective, Plaintiff was not faultless in the delay. Gallagher, 2016 WL 158520, at *2. The reason Plaintiff professed for the delay seems, in part, attributable to Plaintiff’s fault because it could have sought to find the unserved Defendants earlier. Moreover, Plaintiff did not prosecute its case for over ninety days, and, on June 29, 2021, the Court entered a notice of call for Plaintiff to prosecute its case or risk dismissal. (ECF No. 7.) Thereafter, Plaintiff failed to respond, and the Court dismissed its case without prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) Months after the Court’s dismissal, Plaintiff sought to reinstate its case with reasons that are less than compelling. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Motion to Continue the Case will not be granted. The Court hereby DISMISSES this matter WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to mark this case CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. _s_/ _Z_a_h_id_ _N_._ Q__u_ra_i_s_h_i____________ ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Coltec Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Four Leaf Coal Company, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation L.G. Wasson Coal Mining Corp., an Indiana Corporation v. William P. Hobgood Michael H. Holland Marty Hudson Thomas O.S. Rand Elliot A. Segal Carlton R. Sickles Gail R. Wilensky, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Fund United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Trust United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. Coltec Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Four Leaf Coal Company, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation L.G. Wasson Coal Mining Corp., an Indiana Corporation v. William P. Hobgood Michael H. Holland Marty Hudson Thomas O.S. Rand Elliot A. Segal Carlton R. Sickles Gail R. Wilensky, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Find United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund United States of America, Intervenor in D.C., Coltec Industries, Inc.

280 F.3d 262 (Third Circuit, 2002)

Gonzalez v. Crosby

545 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court, 2005)

Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White

536 F.3d 244 (Third Circuit, 2008)

Jordan Atkinson v. Middlesex County

610 F. App'x 109 (Third Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

US HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SUPPLY v. MAMAOIL EOOD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-health-and-hospital-supply-v-mamaoil-eood-njd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack