Yeschick v. Mineta
82 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 348, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6927, 675 F.3d 622 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's failure to monitor a case docket or to update their contact information with the court, resulting in a missed deadline, does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Attorneys have an affirmative and non-delegable duty to diligently monitor their cases, which is not excused by a failure to receive electronic notifications.
Facts:
- Gary Yeschick was terminated as an air traffic controller by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1981 for participating in the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike.
- After a ban on rehiring striking controllers was lifted in 1993, Yeschick applied for reemployment with the FAA.
- Shortly after applying, Yeschick moved residences but failed to inform the FAA of his new address.
- A 1995 letter from the FAA to Yeschick was returned as undeliverable due to an expired forwarding order.
- In 2000, the FAA reviewed its list of PATCO applicants and designated Yeschick’s application as 'inactive' because no current contact information was available.
- In 2009, the email service provider for Yeschick's attorney, Gino Pulito, changed, causing his registered 'alltel.net' email address to stop functioning after May 15, 2009.
- Pulito failed to update his email address with the court and did not monitor the case's electronic docket between May 2009 and January 2010.
- During this period, Pulito became aware that his email address was not working from a separate, unrelated case, but took no action to check the docket in Yeschick's case.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Yeschick filed an age discrimination complaint against the FAA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which dismissed it as untimely.
- Yeschick then filed an age discrimination suit against the Secretary of Transportation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the FAA on the grounds that Yeschick failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
- Yeschick, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.
- On remand, the FAA filed a new motion for summary judgment; Yeschick failed to file a response.
- The district court granted the FAA’s unopposed motion for summary judgment.
- Yeschick filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing excusable neglect, which the district court denied.
- Yeschick, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with the Secretary of Transportation as defendant-appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's failure to monitor the court docket and update their email address with the court, resulting in a failure to respond to a dispositive motion, constitute 'excusable neglect' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) sufficient to warrant relief from the resulting adverse judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, J.
No. An attorney's failure to monitor a case docket or update their contact information with the court is not excusable neglect warranting relief from judgment. The court reasoned that attorneys have an affirmative duty to monitor case dockets, a task made minimally burdensome by modern electronic filing systems. This duty is independent of any electronic notification system, and the responsibility for keeping the court informed of current contact information rests solely with the parties and their counsel. The court found that counsel's neglect was not excusable because he knew that dispositive motions were due, had been notified in an unrelated case that his email was malfunctioning, and still failed to check the docket for nearly six months. The court also noted the potential prejudice to the FAA, which had already defended the suit for six years. Therefore, the lack of diligence demonstrated by Yeschick's counsel precluded a finding of excusable neglect.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that attorneys in the digital age cannot passively rely on electronic notifications as a substitute for their professional duty to actively monitor their cases. The court's decision serves as a stern warning that failures stemming from manageable technological issues, such as updating an email address, will not be considered 'excusable.' This holding reinforces the finality of judgments by setting a high bar for relief under Rule 60(b), placing the burden of diligence squarely on legal practitioners and holding their clients accountable for such administrative failures.
