In the Interest of C.R., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that attorney’s gross negligence was an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ justifying relief from a judgment for failure to prosecute under Rule 60(b)(6) where counsel continued to tell the client that her case was moving forward after it had been dismissed
• finding that a ten-month period between when plaintiffs were informed of dismissal was reasonable and their Rule 60(b)(6) motion did not prejudice the defendants
• concluding counsel virtually abandoned client by failing, inter alia, to 6 attend hearings, meet and confer, participate in case management conference, and make 7 initial disclosures
• holding an attorney’s gross negligence that was not chargeable to his 20 clients justified grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief from final judgment entered for failure to 21 prosecute
• explaining the court lacked jurisdiction to review an underlying dismissal order when a Rule 60 motion was filed after the deadline to appeal
• granting relief from dismissal for failure to prosecute where attorney virtually abandoned client and misled him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).