Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Justices Hear Arguments on Whether Rule 15 Should Inform Rule 60(b)(6) Relief in Blum Bank Case
Loading...
Summary
The Supreme Court heard argument in Blum Bank v. Honickman over whether Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should incorporate Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy when a party seeks to reopen a final judgment.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Blum Bank v. Honickman over whether Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- which permits relief from a final judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief" -- should be applied without folding in Rule 15(a)'s liberal policy favoring amendment.
Mister McKinley, counsel, told the court that "rule 60 b 6 requires extraordinary circumstances to reopen a final judgment," and argued those circumstances cannot be manufactured from a party's strategic choice to stand on its pleadings on appeal. He said the Second Circuit erred by "collapsing the two steps" and importing Rule 15 into the Rule 60(b)(6) inquiry, which, he warned, would undermine finality and invite repetitive litigation.
The respondent side urged a different reading. Mister Raiding, counsel, told the justices that Rule 60(b)(6)'s standard applies in this case and that the plaintiffs "did everything you'd want litigants to do," including appealing an incorrect district-court standard and promptly seeking leave to amend once the law was clarified. Raiding argued the Circuit's summary order corrected an unfair result and that the circumstances here are the sort of "unusual" facts Rule 60(b)(6) was intended to cover.
Throughout argument, several justices pressed both sides on practical consequences. One justice asked whether a rule that denies relief to litigants who chose to appeal would "punish[] the right to appeal" by effectively foreclosing later amendment; another asked whether a district court, in a proper case, could permissibly consider the need to amend when deciding a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to "evade" the one-year limits in subsections of Rule 60 and that ordinary mistakes or inadvertence are covered by other subsections.
Respondent counsel repeatedly framed the dispute as driven by the unusual procedural posture here: the district court applied a pleading standard the Circuit later clarified, and the Circuit's summary order invited reconsideration rather than foreclosing amendment. Counsel pointed to precedents and circuit practice in which courts have returned cases to district courts for reconsideration and relief under Rule 60(b)(6) in comparable circumstances.
Both sides referenced a string of decisions the justices used to test the boundaries of Rule 60 and Rule 15how far courts may look to amendment policy when a judgment has become final. Counsel for the petitioner asked the court to reverse and "bring this case to an end." Counsel for the respondent urged the court to recognize that, in some "unusual and quirky" cases, the interests of justice and the federal rules' preference for deciding cases on the merits can justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
After rebuttal from Mister McKinley reiterating that the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion and that the record showed the alleged pleading defects were identified earlier, the bench announced the case submitted.