Opinion ID: 770391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for relief

Text: 12 On November 20, 1998, the Cacevics submitted a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that their failure to meet the October 18, 1998 filing deadline resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Specifically, the Cacevics stated that the defendants verbally agreed to permit the filing of the summary judgment response after October 18, 1998, once the deposition of Chief Sadow was completed. They also asserted that on several occasions they unsuccessfully attempted to reach the Deputy Clerk for the purpose of obtaining an [additional] extension of the response time beyond October 18, 1998. The Cacevics attached to their motion various exhibits, including selected historical records indicating the frequency and nature of the Hazel Park Police Department's bar checks. 13 In the defendants' response to the motion for relief, they argued that the Cacevics simply failed to submit a substantive response to Defendants' motion, and the Court considered the motion, as it is entitled to do, on the merits without a hearing, after having waited numerous weeks for [the Cacevics] to file a response. Although the defendants acknowledged that they verbally agreed to an extension beyond October 18, 1998, their response noted that the Cacevics never formalized the requested extension with either the district court or defense counsel: 14 Counsel for Defendants stipulated to an extension of time for [the Cacevics] to file a response to Defendants' motion, but [the Cacevics' counsel] never made any effort to bring a motion for an extension of time to file his response, and did not make a written request to Defendants' counsel for such an extension. 15 On December 18, 1998, the district court denied the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, concluding that the Cacevics' failure to file a response within the extended time was not the result of 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.' 16 The Cacevics have timely appealed. They argue that the district court erred by denying them relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), and by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.