Naomi Kehl sued her former college and a soccer coach alleging violations of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment. While the case was pending, her law firm withdrew as counsel. The district court ordered Kehl to either hire new local counsel or proceed pro se within twenty-one days. Kehl failed to respond to the order or appear in court. Consequently, the district court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Thirty-seven days after the dismissal, Kehl filed a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), which the district court denied. Kehl then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit first addressed its jurisdiction. To toll the time to appeal the dismissal order, a Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within twenty-eight days. Because Kehl filed her motion thirty-seven days after the dismissal, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the dismissal order itself. The court's review was limited to the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard, noting that Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court rejected Kehl's arguments because she failed to preserve them in the district court. She argued on appeal that the dismissal was with prejudice due to the statute of limitations and that it should be treated as a default judgment requiring a showing of willfulness. The court deemed these arguments waived because they were not raised below and no plain-error review was requested. Furthermore, Kehl argued on appeal that her failure to comply was excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), but she had only sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6) in the district court. The court explained that these two subsections are mutually exclusive. The court also noted that internal mismanagement by counsel does not constitute excusable neglect. Finally, the court observed that Kehl's only preserved argument regarding extraordinary circumstances was not raised in her opening brief and was therefore abandoned.
The judgment dismissing Kehl's case is final. The plaintiff cannot pursue her Title IX or Fourteenth Amendment claims in this court. The decision reinforces the strict timeline for filing Rule 60(b) motions to preserve appellate jurisdiction and clarifies that arguments not raised in the district court or in the opening brief are waived. It also confirms that counsel's internal mismanagement is generally insufficient to establish excusable neglect for missing court deadlines.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download