Opinion ID: 69163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: William’s Motion for Relief from Judgment

Text: William contends his failure to file a response to Defendants’ statement of material facts was inadvertent and amounted to excusable neglect. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that upon “just terms,” the court may relieve a party from final judgment on several grounds, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Whether failure to comply with a local rule may be excused is an “equitable decision turning on ‘all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.’” Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 1498 (1993). We factor “the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. Notably, this court “has demonstrated its wariness” of grants of relief from judgment based upon attorney error. Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). William’s counsel claims he prepared the required statement of facts and delegated to his secretary the task of filing the statement. He states that in the course of filing many documents, “she overlooked this particular document.” (Appellant’s 5 Br. at 7.) Even so, Defendants’ brief in reply to William’s opposition to summary judgment noted the failure to file the required statement. (R.3-43 at 2 n.1.) So, William’s counsel had notice of the error, yet he did not seek leave to correct it during the five months that the motion for summary judgment was pending. William argues that the reply brief pointed out the error in a footnote with “remarkably small” type size. (Appellant’s Br. at 23.) But, this does not excuse William’s failure to make sure the proper documents were filed with the district court. It was William’s burden, not that of Defendants’ counsel, to ensure he complied with the local rules. William’s counsel waited five months before attempting to correct his error; this delay was significant. Also, because William had notice of his failure to file the required statement, but he made no effort to correct the mistake, his counsel’s error was too serious, even if made in good faith, to be considered “excusable neglect.” The length of the delay and the reason for the delay are factors that weigh against excusing William’s failure to file a response to Defendants’ statement of material facts. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying William’s motion for relief from judgment.