BRANDON V. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION
143 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Brandon (P) sought Rule 60 relief from a judgment entered against him
for failure to prosecute his case. The district court denied relief and P now appeals.
FACTS: P filed an Americans with Disabilities action against the Chicago Board of
Education (D) on August 2, 1995. His attorneys, entered appearances in the case, listing as
their address the Law Offices of Paul F. Peters, One North LaSalle Street, Chicago. The
Clerk of the United States District Court erroneously entered Paul A. Peters, another
Chicago attorney, who is located at 10 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, as attorney for P.
Paul A. Peters actually took the time to write to the Clerk of the district court, informing
the Clerk that he was not counsel of record in the case, had no connection to the case, and
was returning any materials sent to him. The Clerk's office continued its screw up. P's
counsel never received notice of two different status hearings, and failed to appear. After
failing to appear for the second status hearing, the court dismissed the case for want of
prosecution on December 13, 1995. The order dismissing the case was also sent to the wrong
address. A year passed before P's counsel began to wonder what happened to the case. Upon
visiting the Clerk's office in late 1996, he discovered his case had been quite active
without him. One year and three days after the dismissal, Paul F. Peters filed a Rule 60
motion to vacate the judgment. Another clerical error, this one caused by P's counsel,
caused the motion to be spindled under the wrong case number. When P's counsel noticed this
error on the day the motion was to be heard, he pointed it out to the Clerk's office. The
Clerk's office told him the motion would not be heard that day, and would have to be
re-noticed. P's counsel then refiled the motion under the correct case number. Before the
new date for the hearing, however, P's counsel received a minute order from the court,
granting the motion. As a courtesy, P's counsel sent a letter to D's counsel, stating that
the motion had been granted and no appearance was necessary on the date set for hearing the
motion. D's counsel appeared in court on the day of the hearing and persuaded the court to
vacate its order granting Rule 60 relief. After briefing on the motion, the court ultimately
denied Rule 60 relief.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment