Rule 60 motion was filed too late

Listen to this article

Where a man filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for reconsideration more than two years after his negligence lawsuit was dismissed, the reconsideration motion was dismissed as untimely.

Background

In November 2018, Tony Perez Welch filed a negligence suit against defendants in the circuit court, alleging that he was injured in an automobile accident in the parking lot Sam’s Club store in Roanoke. A summary judgment hearing was set for Nov. 9, 2020. On that day, but before the scheduled time for the hearing, defense counsel notified the court that the case had been settled. The court subsequently dismissed this case with prejudice by order dated Jan. 19, 2021.

More than two years later, on March 2, 2023, Welch, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration. Welch alleges, among other things, various instances of fraud and collusion by his former counsel and states that his case “was not resolved as the Defendant[s’] attorney told the Court.”

Analysis

The court finds Welch’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion is time-barred because he filed his motion on March 22, 2023, and his one-year filing deadline passed on Jan. 19, 2022. Even if plaintiff alleged extraordinary circumstances causing the delay, the court cannot equitably toll the deadline. Moreover, Welch’s motion does not indicate any discernable reason for the motion’s untimeliness, and it is denied.

Welch filed a letter with the court on July 17, 2023, stating he is “presently preparing my reply to the Defendants’ and Attorney Dooley’s recent filings” and that he “look[s] forward to substantiating the claims of Fraudulent Concealment and Misconduct by both Attorney Victor Skaff, III and Attorney Tim Dooley.” To date, however, nothing has been filed, and more than a month has passed.

Based on the representation of counsel that this case had been settled, this case was dismissed on Jan. 19, 2021, and at this late date, Rule 60(b) does not permit the court to reopen this case. Accordingly, the court is required to deny the motion filed by Welch to reconsider the dismissal of this case.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration denied.

Welch v. Sam’s East Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-668, Sept. 7, 2023. WDVA at Roanoke (Urbanski). VLW 023-3-536. 8 pp.