Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas overruled the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and two related requests for hearings. The court held that the plaintiff had not shown an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice concerning the prior denial of relief under Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 11.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff established grounds for reconsideration of the order denying his Rule 60(d)(3) fraud-on-the-court motion.
- Whether plaintiff established grounds for reconsideration of the order declining to impose Rule 11 sanctions against defense counsel.
- Whether the court should hold hearings on the motions for reconsideration.
- Whether the alleged uncertainty concerning plaintiff's state citizenship demonstrated a jurisdictional error or manifest injustice requiring reconsideration.
Holdings
- A motion for reconsideration is not warranted absent an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence that could not previously have been obtained through due diligence, clear error, or manifest injustice; plaintiff established none of those grounds.
- The court did not clearly err in concluding that defense counsel's representation that plaintiff's last known address was in Kansas did not constitute an intentional fraud on the court.
- The court did not clearly err in declining to impose Rule 11 sanctions because defense counsel's actions were objectively reasonable and consistent with what a reasonable, competent attorney would believe under the circumstances.
- The alleged uncertainty concerning plaintiff's residence did not establish manifest injustice because diversity jurisdiction would remain if plaintiff were not a Kansas resident, given that plaintiff did not allege citizenship in Washington or Delaware, the states in which defendant was a citizen.
- The court may deny requests for hearings when a hearing would not assist resolution of the motions, and the requested hearings were not warranted here.
Key quotations
“The Court has discretion to reconsider a decision if the moving party can establish (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” (Legal Standards)
“Finally, plaintiff has not established the need to correct manifest injustice, because (as the Court has previously noted) plaintiff does not allege that he is or ever was a resident of the States of Washington or Delaware, the states in which defendant is a citizen. Thus, the Court would retain diversity jurisdiction either way.” (Analysis)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that Amazon required him to perform work outside his job description and that Amazon violated Kansas law by responding to the Kansas Department of Labor concerning the termination of his employment. After removal, plaintiff disputed diversity jurisdiction, asserting that he was homeless and had never resided in Kansas. The court concluded that defense counsel did not intend to defraud the court by identifying plaintiff's last known address as being in Kansas, and that counsel's conduct was objectively reasonable. The court further determined that diversity jurisdiction would exist regardless because plaintiff did not claim citizenship in Washington or Delaware, the states in which Amazon was alleged to be a citizen.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed suit in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Defendant removed the action to the District of Kansas based on diversity jurisdiction. The federal court denied plaintiff's motion to remand, later dismissed the action, denied plaintiff's motions to vacate the judgment for fraud on the court and for sanctions, and then denied the present motions for reconsideration and hearings.