Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
A designer filed suit against a toy company in federal court. The court had both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties. The federal district court entered a judgment dismissing the designer's action for failure to prosecute. The designer's attorney did not monitor the court's docket and, as a result, failed to learn of the dismissal promptly. Two years after the entry of the dismissal and judgment, the designer's attorney filed a motion seeking relief from the judgment.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Here, the designer's attorney negligently waited two years after the court's entry of the dismissal for failure to prosecute and thus is not eligible under FRCP 60(b) to file a motion for relief from the judgment.
A is incorrect. It is the attorney's responsibility to find out about an entry of judgment against his client and, if necessary, to make a timely Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment.
B is incorrect. After more than a year from the entry of judgment, the judgment is final. Therefore, even though it is unfortunate that the designer has to suffer the high price of a dismissal with prejudice as the result of minor negligence by his attorney, the interest in the finality of the judgment takes precedence.
D is incorrect. Although FRCP 60(b)(1) states that the error of one's attorney can be a ground for relieving a party from a final judgment, this type of motion must be made no more than one year after the entry of the judgment. As the fact pattern indicates, it has been two years since the judgment was entered against the designer.