Kristine Lee Hardwick-Lewis, as Trustee of the KLH Revocable Living Trust v. John C. Hanrahan, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Kristine Lee Hardwick-Lewis’s motion for relief from the order dismissing her action and for leave to cure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3). The court held that Plaintiff’s asserted mistake, surprise, and inability to proceed pro se on behalf of a trust did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6), and ordered that the case remain closed.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because she did not establish a qualifying mistake or unfair surprise occurring after the court advised her that she could not represent the Trust pro se and gave her an opportunity to retain counsel and amend.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because her asserted mistake and surprise fell within Rule 60(b)(1), which is mutually exclusive with Rule 60(b)(6), and she identified no extraordinary circumstances or good claim or defense warranting relief.
3. Rule 17(a)(3) did not require the court to permit Plaintiff to proceed pro se in her individual capacity because the prior dismissal was based on her inability to represent the Trust pro se, not on a failure to identify the real party in interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect warranting relief from the dismissal and case closure under Rule 60(b)(1).
2. Whether Plaintiff established extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under the catchall provision of Rule 60(b)(6).
3. Whether Rule 17(a)(3) required the court to allow Plaintiff to proceed pro se in her individual capacity or otherwise provide an additional opportunity to cure.

Disposition

other