Articles Tagged with rule 60 motion

Not in the Seventh Circuit, it doesn’t.   In Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc.,  No 08-1967 (7th Cir. June 29, 2009) the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

The Court ruled as follows:

[W]e drew a clear line in United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, 15 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 1994) when we said that “[t]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds.” The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. See id. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances. See Williams, 890 F.2d at 996. Hinterlong’s actions, even with BMF’s purported diligence, do not fall within the exceptions to the rule and do not rise to the level of  ‘exceptional’ to warrant such ‘extraordinary’ relief.

Contact Information