Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, David A. Kersh appealed a district court's decision denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Kersh initially filed a personal injury lawsuit in Michigan state court in 1982, alleging harm from formaldehyde exposure due to insulation installed in his home. The case was subsequently removed to federal court and dismissed with prejudice after Kersh failed to appear at a show cause hearing. His appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and the defendant was awarded attorney’s fees as sanctions, which were affirmed by the appellate court. Over the years, Kersh filed several motions, including for reconsideration and disqualification of the trial judge, all of which were denied. His successive Rule 60(b) motions, filed in 1994, 1995, and 2001, were also dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Kersh’s most recent Rule 60(b) motion, noting no abuse of discretion. Furthermore, due to his history of frivolous litigation, the court ordered Kersh to show cause why an injunction should not be issued to bar him from future filings related to this matter without prior court approval. The court provided specific instructions for Kersh to follow if he seeks to file future appeals, emphasizing the need for good faith and non-frivolous intentions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Injunction Against Further Filingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ordered Kersh to show cause why an injunction against further filings should not be issued due to his history of frivolous litigation.
Reasoning: Kersh is ordered to provide a written explanation within thirty days as to why an injunction should not be issued to prevent him from filing any further pleadings or appeals related to the ongoing litigation against Borden Chemical Inc.
Procedural History and Dismissal for Lack of Prosecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kersh's appeal and subsequent motions were dismissed for lack of prosecution, and his multiple motions for reconsideration and disqualification of the trial judge were denied.
Reasoning: His appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The defendant sought and was granted sanctions against Kersh for attorneys' fees amounting to $55,775.98, a decision that was affirmed by this court.
Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that Rule 60(b) motions do not permit re-litigation of the case or presentation of new arguments.
Reasoning: Upon appeal, this court reviewed the denial of Kersh's Rule 60(b) motion, emphasizing that such motions do not allow for re-litigation of the case or presentation of new arguments.
Sanctions and Attorney's Feessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was awarded sanctions against Kersh for attorneys' fees, which this court affirmed.
Reasoning: The defendant sought and was granted sanctions against Kersh for attorneys' fees amounting to $55,775.98, a decision that was affirmed by this court.