# Charles E. Buck v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 6, 1992 · 960 F.2d 603

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482786

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles E. BUCK, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 6, 1992
- **Citations:** 960 F.2d 603; 22 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 741; 17 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1375; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6211; 1992 WL 65439
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Guy, Lively
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482786

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “[d]espite the Supreme Court’s unequivocal language, [the] court, like many others, has been extremely reluctant to uphold the dismissal of a case or the entering of a default judgment merely to discipline an errant attorney because such a sanction deprives the …
- holding that the sudden illness of the movant’s counsel did not constitute excusable neglect for failure to file pleadings where counsel never informed the court of the illness
- holding that sudden illness of counsel was not excusable neglect where counsel did not provide details of his illness

## Opinion text

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the panel. This Court reviews a denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion under an abuse of discretion standard. Amernational Industries, Inc. v. Action-Tungsram, Inc., 925 F.2d 970, 975 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2857 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1991). The decision to set aside a judgment is controlled by three factors: 1) whether defendant will be prejudiced; 2) whether plaintiff has a meritorious claim; and 3) whether plaintiff’s culpable conduct led to the dismissal. Id. at 976.
Under this Court’s decisions in Ashbrook v. Block, 917 F.2d 918 (6th Cir.1990) and Lundstrum v. Lyng, 954 F.2d 1142 (6th Cir.1991), plaintiffs in this case cannot demonstrate that they have a meritorious claim. The District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. For this reason, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion, and it would be futile to send this case back to the District Court to be heard on the merits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9482786. Public record. Not legal advice.