Search : Rule 59

To end the week, I’ll point out three recent Court of Appeals opinions that remind us that a Rule 59 (“new trial”) motion will not toll an appeal period if the motion does not actually seek proper Rule 59 relief.  If, for example, the motion does not provide proper notice of the grounds for relief, or if it is being used merely as a general “motion for reconsideration,” it may not be considered “proper.”  As I’ve discussed in previous posts (here and here), North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a trial judge to order a new trial (or, through Rule 59(e), amendment of judgment) for a number of reasons, including prejudicial irregularity, jury misconduct, newly-discovered evidence, insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, prejudicial error of law, and other bases.  A proper Rule 59 motion tolls the period for appeal of the underlying judgment. N.C. R. App. P. 3(c)(3); G.S. 1-279.1.  But if a court determines that Rule 59 was not the appropriate vehicle for remedy sought, the appeal period will not have been tolled. These three recent published opinions are our newest examples of this outcome:

In a prior post, I discussed whether North Carolina’s Rule of Civil Procedure 59—the “new trial” rule—could be used to seek relief from final judgments not resulting from a jury or non-jury trial.  That post focused on other types of final, appealable judgments, such as summary judgment orders and default judgments.  I concluded that North Carolina case law is not crystal clear on the question, but that the recent case of Bodie Island Beach Club Ass’n, Inc. v. Wray, 215 N.C. App. 283 (2011), indicates that filing Rule 59 motions for relief from these types of judgments could imperil an appeal.  Proper Rule 59 motions toll the appeal period for the underlying judgment pending disposition of the motion.  See N.C. R. App. P. 3(c)(3).  If the basis for the Rule 59 motion is not proper, the appeal period will not have been tolled.

Yesterday the Court of Appeals again addressed Rule 59’s applicability to orders other than trial judgments, but this time analyzed a pretrial, interlocutory order.  In Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc. v. JAAAT Tech. Services, LLC, a construction dispute, a subcontractor sued a contractor for unpaid work.  The trial judge granted the subcontractor a preliminary injunction requiring the contractor

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a trial judge to order a “new trial” for a number of reasons, including prejudicial irregularity, jury misconduct, newly-discovered evidence, insufficient evidence […]

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals rendered a decision in In re A.K., __ N.C. App. __ (August 6, 2024), which touches on multiple issues relevant to juvenile abuse, neglect, dependency (AND) practitioners. (I blogged about one of those issues – a parent’s right to be represented by a retained attorney of their choosing, regardless of the attorney’s AND experience – here. My colleague Sara DePasquale published a blog about another issue: considering a family’s culture, including religion and language, in an AND proceeding.) This post will explore a third issue raised in the opinion: the appointment of a Rule 17 guardian ad litem (GAL) to an incompetent respondent parent.

Appropriate service of process is one of the necessary elements for personal jurisdiction—meaning the documents used to initiate a civil lawsuit, a summons and complaint, must be served on the […]

Unless you are frequently immersed in mediation practice, you may have missed a recent renaming and overhaul of seven sets of rules governing court mediation in North Carolina.  The updates […]

Rule 9(j)’s special pleading requirement Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires plaintiffs filing medical malpractice complaints to include a specific allegation not required in other […]

Imagine this scenario: Judge A had a busy civil calendar before leaving for vacation.  Although all the hearings are complete, the judge did not make rulings on some issues.  As […]

As every North Carolina litigator should know, Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that, by signing a pleading or “other paper” (motion, subpoena, etc.) related to the litigation, the attorney certifies that,

to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

If an opposing party decides that the paper violates one more of these requirements—legal sufficiency, factual sufficiency, or proper purpose—that party can move the court to impose “an appropriate sanction,” which may include attorney fees and other expenses.  Rule 11 does not, however, set a time limit for filing a Rule 11 motion.  So when is it too late?  I have been asked this question (or similar ones) a few times in recent months.  The short answer, of course, is that it depends on the facts.  But  I thought I would share the parameters I have observed from reviewing the case law:

Lawyers typically don’t litigate (nor judges adjudicate) for very long in North Carolina without confronting Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).  This rule allows a trial court to “relieve a party…from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a number of reasons based in equity. The reasons are divided into six categories:

• Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
• Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
• Fraud…, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
• The judgment is void;
• The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
• Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Unlike Rule 50 (JNOV) and 59 (new trial) motions, which must be made within 10 days after judgment, Rule 60(b) motions may be filed up to one year from the order (or, for the last three categories, potentially even later), as long as the timing is reasonable. There will be occasions when the moving party can be heard by the same judge who issued the order.  But often the passage of time can make this difficult: The judge may be presiding in a different district or may be ill, on leave, or no longer on the bench.  It’s not surprising, then, that fairly often my colleagues and I are asked:  May a judge other than the original judge hear and rule on a Rule 60(b) motion?