Summary
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Aziz Tokh’s post-judgment motions after summary judgment was entered for a homeowners association and its management company in his Fair Housing Act discrimination suit. The court held that Tokh’s Rule 60(b) motion improperly rehashed the merits, his Rule 50 motion was unavailable because the case was decided on summary judgment rather than after trial, and the asserted representation defects did not warrant relief. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tokh’s state-law claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Tokh's Rule 60(b) motion when the motion merely rehashed the merits of the case and identified no newly discovered evidence or other qualifying ground for relief.
- Whether Tokh could obtain relief under Rule 50(b) after the case had been resolved by summary judgment rather than by a jury trial.
- Whether alleged violations of association bylaws and local court rules concerning representation justified relief from judgment.
- Whether the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tokh's state-law claim after no federal claims remained.
Holdings
- A Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for a timely appeal and does not warrant relief when it merely rehashes arguments based on the existing record without newly discovered evidence or another specified ground for relief.
- Rule 50 is inapplicable when the case was decided at summary judgment rather than after a trial.
- Alleged deviations from association bylaws or local court rules concerning representation do not justify relief from judgment when they do not affect the merits and the argument could have been presented before judgment.
- After the federal claims were no longer pending, the district court properly exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.
Key quotations
“A Rule 60(b) motion requires that Tokh present newly discovered evidence or identify another limited ground for relief from judgment specified in the Rule.” (631)
“Rule 50 is inapplicable to this case because it was decided at summary judgment, not after a trial.” (632)
Factual background
Tokh enlarged the front stoop and back patio of his townhouse in violation of restrictive covenants in the homeowners association's declaration and bylaws. The association fined him, ordered restoration of the property, and suspended his voting rights. Tokh alleged that these actions were motivated by discrimination based on his Muslim faith, Asian ethnicity, and Afghan birth.
Procedural history
Tokh sued the homeowners association and its management company under the Fair Housing Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Tokh did not timely appeal that judgment. The district court later denied Tokh's three post-judgment motions, and Tokh timely appealed only from the April 21, 2008 order denying those motions.