Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. v. Bernard Lust, Trading as Sydney Lust Theatres, and Independent Theatres, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that counsel’s “deliberate decision not to enter an appearance or file an answer enumerating his client’s defenses” did not justify relief under Rule 60(b)(1)
• finding grossly negligent behavior by attorney did not constitute exceptional circumstances meriting reconsideration
• affirming entry of summary judgment on the grounds that the attorney's failure to enter an appearance and contest the granting of summary judgment was \grossly negligent\ and could not be deemed excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1
• party not relieved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from summary judgment where counsel's failure to proffer defenses was grossly, rather than excusably, negligent
• party not relieved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) from summary judgment where counsel’s failure to proffer defenses was grossly, rather than excusably, negligent
• Each party is bound by acts of his lawyer. A client's remedy lies in a suit for malpractice.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).