Reshard v. Stevenson (2022)

Citation: Reshard v. Stevenson (2022)
Parent Document: Reshard v. Stevenson (2022)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2022-02-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6444934/reshard-v-stevenson/ ↗

Full Text

1,015 chars

60(b) motion is properly before us. See, e.g., Nuyen v. Luna, 884 A.2d 650, 654–56
(D.C. 2005) (construing motion as one under Rule 60(b), which does not toll the
period for filing an appeal from the underlying order, and thus finding scope of
appeal limited to the denial of the 60(b) motion).
      10
          Rule 60(b) includes a catchall provision that allows a court to set aside a
final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief,” Super. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b)(6),
but this provision requires asserting some “other reason” aside from the grounds for
relief provided elsewhere in Rule 60(b). P’ship Placements, Inc. v. Landmark Ins.
Co., 722 A.2d 837, 844 (D.C. 1998). No such “other reason” appears in Ms.
Reshard’s filings and, in any event, we would address the denial of a motion under
Rule 60(b)(6) with reference to the same factors that apply to a Rule 60(b)(1) motion.
See Starling v. Jephunneh Lawrence & Assocs., 495 A.2d 1157, 1162 (D.C. 1985).
                                           9

Other Sections in This Document (262)

Full Text