Alberto Arango v. City of Margate

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15007 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 06-60521-CV-WPD
ALBERTO ARANGO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MARGATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 23, 2010)
Before BARKETT, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alberto Arango sued the City of Margate (“the City”) in Florida state court for
violation of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et
seq. The City removed the case to federal district court. In February 2007, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement (“the Agreement”). Under the Agreement, if
certain conditions were met, Arango would receive a preferential promotion within
the City’s fire department. On the parties’ motion and based upon the Agreement, the
district court dismissed the case with prejudice on February 28, 2007. (R.1-16.)
On June 23, 2009, Arango filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (R.1-17.) Arango sought an order setting
aside the dismissal with prejudice on the ground that, at the time the City entered into
the Agreement, it did not intend to promote Arango. Arango argued that the
Agreement was illusory and that the City had acted in bad faith in inducing Arango
to enter the Agreement. He further argued that the City’s bad faith and frustration of
the purpose of the Agreement constituted extraordinary circumstances warranting
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and cited Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n,
Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1991) in support of that argument. (R.1-17
at 9-10.) As evidence of the City’s bad faith, Arango attached a letter dated
September 23, 2008 and a transcript of an October 30, 2008 meeting of the City’s
Civil Service Board. (Id., Exs. A & B.) Arango sought the ability to reinstate his
lawsuit under the Act. He did not seek enforcement of the Agreement.
On August 28, 2009, the district court denied the motion on the ground that it
had not retained jurisdiction over the Agreement and therefore could not enforce it.
2
(R.1-23 at 2.) The court stated that, for that reason, relief under Rule 60 was not
warranted. (Id. at 2-3.)
After review of the record, we find that the district court erred in denying the
motion on the ground that it could not order the relief Arango requested. Arango’s
papers filed in support of his motion acknowledge that the district court did not have
jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement and affirmatively state that Arango did not seek
that remedy. (R.1-17 at 10-11.) In considering whether the argument and evidence
presented by Arango in support of his motion satisfied the Rule 60(b)(6) standard for
relief from the judgment, the district court should have made findings as to whether
Arango’s motion was a timely request for relief as required by Rule 60(c)(1) and
whether the evidence Arango presented in support of his motion was sufficient to
warrant a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify relief from the
judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). See Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307,
1316 (11th Cir. 2000); Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410.
We vacate the district court’s August 28, 2009 order and remand the case with
instructions that the district court consider Arango’s motion for relief from the
judgment in the manner discussed above.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3