Ackermann v. United States

18 Citing briefs

  1. Mousovi et al v. Bush et al

    Memorandum in opposition to Petitioners' Rule 60

    Filed September 4, 2007

    To be sure, the Supreme Court has recited incarceration as one fact among others that might support granting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. See, e.g., Ackerman, 340 U.S. at 200-01; Klapprott, 335 U.S. at 613-15. Here, however, other factors demonstrate that, unlike the petitioner in Klapprott where the Supreme Court found extraordinary circumstances, petitioners’ incarceration is not an impediment to them challenging their detention.

  2. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

    Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed October 13, 2016

    Courts will not “rescue” a litigant from an improvident “litigation choice” because “Rule 60(b)(6) is not an opportunity for unsuccessful litigants to take a mulligan.” Kramer, 481 F.3d at 792; see also Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950) (A movant may not obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6) from “free, calculated, [and] deliberate choices”). It is thus not “manifestly unjust” to deny Plaintiff a chance to belatedly make its new argument after judgment already has been entered.

  3. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, 22 Memorandum & Opinion

    Filed February 5, 2016

    Courts will not “rescue” a litigant from an improvident “litigation choice” because “Rule 60(b)(6) is not an opportunity for unsuccessful litigants to take a mulligan.” Kramer, 481 F.3d at 792; see also Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950) (A movant may not obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6) from “free, calculated, [and] deliberate choices”). It is thus not “manifestly unjust” to deny Plaintiff a chance to belatedly make its new argument after judgment already has been entered.

  4. Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings

    Filed May 1, 2015

    For example, the Supreme Court has held that a party that makes “a considered choice not to appeal … cannot be relieved of such a choice because hindsight seems to indicate to him that his decision not to appeal was probably wrong ….” Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950). In another case, the Supreme Court held that respondents could not become “windfall beneficiaries of an appellate reversal procured by other independent parties” where the respondents “made a calculated choice to forgo their appeals.”

  5. Linda P. Nash, Appellant,v.The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed October 9, 2013

    V. Firetog, 94 N.Y.2d 477, 484, 727 N.E.2d 1220, 706 N.Y.S.2d 666, 667 (2000): once the Attorney General "embarked on a strategic litigation" course he was precluded 21 from changing his position by disowning it. See, too, Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198, 71 S. Ct. 209, 95 L. Ed. 207 (1950). In Ackerman the Supreme Court affirming the denial by the courts below of a motion that denied a motion brought by the defendant to overturn a final judgment he did not appeal, pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), that allows for overturning final judgments for "any other r

  6. Lyman v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 44 FIRST MOTION to Reopen Case.. Document

    Filed November 21, 2012

    Relief from an order of dismissal under Rule 60(b) may be granted only in "extraordinary circumstances." S¿¿ Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-202 (1950); see also Nemaizer v. Baker,793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.1986). "When a pafty makes a deliberate, strategic choice to settle, a court cannot relieve him of that choice simply because his assessment of the consequences was incorrect.

  7. Roe et al v. Estate of Thomas White et al

    Reply Memorandum to Plaintiffs' Opposition to 979 Motion to Vacate Judgment

    Filed November 9, 2009

    Thus “extraordinary circumstances” have occurred that require relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as an equitable remedy “‘to accomplish justice.’” Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988), quoting Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15 (1949); see also, Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1950). Plaintiffs’ argument otherwise should be rejected.

  8. BANKS v. YORK et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Reconsideration

    Filed October 10, 2007

    Wright, et al., 11 Federal Practice and Procedure (1995), § 2864, pp. 359-360. See also Ackermann v. United States, supra, 340 U.S. at 198 (the petitioner cannot be relieved of his decision not to appeal “because hindsight seems to indicate to him that his decision * * * was probably wrong”); Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 60(b)(6) motions are not substitutes for timely appeals”). Plaintiff has missed his opportunity to appeal the dismissal of Count V.

  9. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tambone et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Set Aside Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60

    Filed April 4, 2006

    B. The Commission Has Failed to Act in a Timely Manner “In our adversary system of justice, each litigant remains under an abiding duty to take the legal steps that are necessary to protect his or her own interests.” Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Ackerman, 340 U.S. at 197). This bedrock principle prohibits a party from using Rule 60(b)(6) as a “back-door substitute” to cure its failure to act in a timely manner.

  10. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation

    MEMORANDUM re Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Settlement,,,,,,,,,, 405 Order on Motion to Modify, 430 Memorandum & Opinion

    Filed December 18, 2015

    Rule 60(b)(6) permits modification “for any other reason that justifies relief,” but both the Supreme Court and this Circuit have cautioned that Rule 60(b)(6) “should [ ] be applied [only] in extraordinary circumstances,” and “only sparingly used.” Liljeberg v. Health Svcs Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950)); Salazar ex rel Salazar v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110, 1116-17 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005); Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Moreover, as this Court has previously held, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is not available “unless the other clauses [of Rule 60(b)], (1) through (5), are inapplicable,” Pigford v. Veneman, 307 F.Supp.2d 43, 48 (D.D.C. 2004), since “clause (6) and clauses (1) through (5) are mutually exclusive.”