Opinion ID: 3153549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) Motions

Text: Ms. Mark filed three post-judgment motions seeking the reinstatement of her suit. As with the dismissal itself, we review the denial of those motions for abuse of discretion. See Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Sch., 715 F.3d 775, 789 (10th Cir. 2013). The district court primarily declined to vacate the dismissal because it believed that Ms. Mark had not satisfied (and could never satisfy) a jurisdictional prerequisite because she had not served the United States within the period for commencing a FTCA suit. After the district court’s decisions in this case, however, the Supreme Court held that the FTCA’s time limitations are not jurisdictional. See United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1633 (2015) (“[28 U.S.C. §] 2401(b) [stating time limits for FTCA claims] is not a jurisdictional requirement. The time limits in the FTCA are just time limits, nothing more. Even though they govern litigation against the Government, a court can toll them on equitable grounds.”). Judicial 5 decisions interpreting statutes commonly operate retrospectively. See Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”); De Niz Robles v. Lynch, -- F.3d --, 2015 WL 6153073, at  (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2015) (“[J]udicial decisions have had retrospective operation for near a thousand years.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, the FTCA statute of limitations does not present an unsurmountable jurisdictional obstacle to Ms. Mark’s action and need not bar reinstatement of her claims against the United States. Of course, the district court did not have the advantage of Kwai Fun Wong when it was considering Ms. Mark’s post-judgment motions. In these circumstances, we believe the appropriate course is to vacate the orders denying those motions and remand for further consideration by the district court. The district court also stated that counsel had never explained why the United States was not served in the five-month period after filing the amended complaint and that it would “likely” deny the Rule 60(b) motions on that ground. Aplt. App. at 60. We do not consider this statement as an alternate ground for affirming the judgment, however, because it was a prediction made under the belief that Ms. Mark could not satisfy a jurisdictional prerequisite. It is possible that the district court could change its decision in light of Kwai Fun Wong. But, of course, on remand the district court retains full discretion to consider whether Ms. Mark has established any Rule 60(b) ground for relief. 6