FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10132 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 2 1 8 1 - CV- J LK L U I S R I V E R A M O N T E R O , P la in tif f- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J O H N E . P O T T E R , a s P o s tm a s te rG e n e r a l o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 31, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Montero argues for the first time on appe al the district court erre d in not setting aside the 1 summary judgment order underlying his Rule 60(b) (1) motion on the basis that his attorney rendered ineffe ctive assistanc e. We nee d not addre ss this i ssue bec ause w e find the order denying post-judgment relief should be vac ated f

or the re asons set forth herein. 2 L ui s R i ve r aM ont e r o a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s F e de r a l R ul e of C iv il P r o c e d u r e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) m o tio n fo rr e lie f f r o m s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t a s to h is e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on, f i l e d a ga i ns tJ ohn P ott e r , P os t m a s t e rG e ne r a l of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ( P os tO f f i c e ) , unde rT i t l e V I I of

the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964, 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 3( a ) . H e a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng h is m o tio n fo rr e lie f

f r o m th e ju d g m e n t b a s e d u p o n “e x c u s a b le n e g le c t.” 1 W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of r e l i e f unde rR ul e 60( b) fora bus e of d is c r e tio n . D av i s v . F l a. P ow e r& L i ghtC o. , 20 5 F . 3d 13 01 , 13 04 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) . W e c o n s id e ro n ly th e d e n ia l o f r e lie f a s to th e m o tio n f

ile d u n d e rR u le 6 0 ( b ) , n o t th e u n d e r ly in g ju d g m e n t. C av al i e r e v . A l l s tat e I ns . C o. , 996 F . 2d 1111, 1 1 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A pa r t y m a y f

i l e am ot i on forr e l i e f

f r om aj udgm e ntoror de rba s e d upon “m is ta k e , in a d v e r te n c e , s u r p r is e , o re x c u s a b le n e g le c t.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) . T o p re vai l on thi s groun d, the appel l anthas the bu rden t o d em on stra t e a ju s tif ic a tio n s o c o m p e llin g th e c o u r t w a s “r e q u ir e d ” to v a c a te its o r d e r . R i ce v. F ord M otorC o. , 88 F . 3d 91 4, 91 9 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). G ener al l y, such re l i ef “ i s a n extra ordi nary re m edy w hi ch m ay be i nv ok ed on l y upo n a show i ng of excepti on alIn Bo nn e r v . Ci tyof P richa rd, 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1thCir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 2 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 3 ci rc um st ance s. ” G r i

f f i n v . Sw i m - T

e c h C or p. , 7 2 2 F .2 d 6 7 7 , 6 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . W e have al so hel d “ w here deni al of re l i ef [und erR ul e 60(b)] prec l ud es exam i nat i on of the ful l m er i t s of the ca use, even a s l i gh tabuse m ay j ust i fy re vers al . ” S even E l ves, In c. v. E sken a zi , 63 5 F . 2d 39 6, 40 2 (5t h C i r. 19 81 ). 2 I n Seve n E l ve s , w e fo u n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in fa ilin g to granta R ul e 60(b) m ot i on w here do i ng so w as nece ss ar y t o “ ac com pl i sh j ust i ce ” gi ve n the “ tr unc a t e d pr oc e e di ngs ” tha tl e d t o a n e ntr y of aj udgm e nta ga i ns tthe appel l ant s, w ho al so “ di d n otappear, ei ther pers on al l y or throu gh an att orney” at the proceedi ng du e t o “ un usual ci rc um st ance s. ” Seve n E l ve s , 6 3 5 F .2 d a t 4 0 3 - 0 4 . T h e fo llo w in g fa c to r s w e r e c o n s id e r e d in r e a c h in g th is d e te r m in a tio n : ( 1) [ t ] ha tf

i na l j udgm e nt s s houl d notl i ght l y be di s turbe d; ( 2) tha tthe R ul e 60(b) m ot i on i s nott o b e use d as asubst i tut e for appeal ; (3) that the rul e s ho ul d b e l i bera l l y c on strued i n o rdert o achi eve s ub st ant i al j us t i c e ; ( 4) w he the rthe m ot i on w a s m a de w i thi n ar e a s ona bl e t i m e ; ( 5) w hether i f the j ud gm entw as a defaul tor a di sm i ss al i n w hi ch there w a s no c ons i de r a t i on of the m e r i t s the i nt e r e s ti n de c i di ng c a s e s on the m e r i t s out w e i ghs , i n the pa r t i c ul a rc a s e , the i nt e r e s ti n the f i na l i t y of j udgm e nt s , a nd the r e i s m e r i ti n the m ova nt ’ s c l a i m orde fe ns e ; ( 6) w he the ri f

the j udgm e ntw a s r e nde r e d a f t e ratr i a l on the m e r i t s the m ova ntha d afa i roppor tuni t y t o pr e s e nthi s c l a i m orde fe ns e ; ( 7) w h e th e rth e r e a r e in te r v e n in g e q u itie s th a t w o u ld m a k e it in e q u ita b le t o gr a ntr e l i e f ; a nd ( 8) a ny othe rfa c t or s r e l e va ntt o the j us t i c e of the j udgm e ntunde ra tt a c k.4

I d. a t 4 0 2 . A ppl y i ng the fa c t or s s e tfor th i n Seve n E l ve s to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e , w e f

in d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f r e lie f w a s s u f f ic ie n tly “m is a lig n e d w ith th e e q u itie s ” a s to w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l. See i d. a t402- 03. F i r s t , M ont e r o doe s not s e e k to u s e th e R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n in th is c a s e a s as u b s titu te fo ra p p e a l. See i d. at 402. H i s m ot i on w a s br oughtw i thi n a“ r e a s ona bl e t i m e ” a f t e rthe de ni a l of

the po stj ud gm entm ot i on , as i tw as fi l ed on l y s even days af t erthe di stri ctcourt o r d e r e d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. See i d. F urther, the sum m ar y j ud gm entorder w as e nt e r e d i n M ont e r o’ s a bs e nc e , pr i ort o the t a ki ng of e vi de nc e by hi m , a nd w i thout the re qu i si t e t en-day no t i ce un der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (c ), such that th e e x te n t to w h ic h h e h a d a n o p p o r tu n ity to p r e s e n t h is c a s e is a t b e s t u n c le a r . See i d. A c c or di ngl y , the pr oc e e di ngs be for e the di s tr i c tc our tw e r e “ tr unc a t e d” s u c h th a t “R u le 6 0 ( b ) [ s h o u ld ] b e lib e r a lly c o n s tr u e d in fa v o ro f tr ia l o n th e f

u ll m er i t s of the ca se . ” I

d. F i na l l y , w e not e H ur r i c a ne J e a nne s tr uc k the a r e adur i ng the t i m e the m ot i on w as pend i ng , and i n d enyi ng M on t er o’ s R ul e 60(b)(1) m ot i on , the di stri ctcourt fa i l ed t o exp l ai n w hy the hu rr i ca ne w as no ta bas i s for “ excusabl e negl ec t . ” R a th e r , it c ite d a s th e b a s is fo rits r u lin g , f ir s t, its d e s ir e to r e a c h atim e ly d isp o siti o n o f th e c as e, an d , sec o n d , i ts ap p ar en t d eter m in atio n th at M o n tero ’s5

fa i l ur e t o r e s pond t o the m ot i on w a s the r e s ul tof hi s a tt or ne y ’ s ove r s i ght . F orthe fo r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f M o n te r o ’s R u le 60 (b)( 1) m ot i on w as an abuse of di sc re t i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at e the di stri ct court ’ s orderthatw as ent er ed on O ct ob er1, 20 04 , and rem and for further p ro ceed i n g s. V A C A T E D A N D R E M A N D E D .