Attorney succeeded in persuading the Third Circuit to affirm the decision of the District Court, to deny the plaintiff's motion for F

Attorney succeeded in persuading the Third Circuit to affirm the decision of the District Court, to deny the plaintiff's motion for F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) relief from a judgment. In response to the plaintiff's complaint, the attorney filed a timely motion to dismiss. When plaintiff failed to file a response to the motion when due, the District Court granted the motion as uncontested and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. Five months later, plaintiff filed a motion for relief under Rule 60, claiming excusable neglect and extraordinary circumstances. The essence of plaintiff's motion was that its outside counsel had misled it by promising to answer the motion to dismiss, and by sending a draft of the motion, along with assurances that the dismissal was a mistake, which would be rectified. In his successful opposition to the plaintiff's Rule 60 motion, the attorney pointed out that there was no excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances, since plaintiff's in-house counsel knew of the dismissal at least four months before hiring new counsel to seek relief from the dismissal, and persuaded the District Court to find that plaintiff had no satisfied the criteria governing relief under Rule 60. On appeal, The attorney responded to the plaintiff's attacks against the District Court 's decision by persuading the Court of Appeals that, for several reasons supported by the record and the applicable case law, the District Court had not abused its discretion in denying Rule 60 relief.