Narrative Opinion Summary
S.L., a minor represented by her mother Cynthia Lee, appeals the district court's order from October 27, 2003, which denied her motion to reconsider the earlier denial of her motion to set aside a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision based on its stated reasons. The appeal is limited to the October 27, 2003 order, as S.L.'s notice of appeal was not timely regarding the underlying judgment or her initial motion to set it aside. Additionally, S.L.'s motion to expedite was denied, while her motion to amend the docketing statement was granted. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary since the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.
Legal Issues Addressed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of a motion to reconsider under Rule 60(b)(6) was upheld by the appellate court as there was no reversible error found.
Reasoning: S.L., a minor represented by her mother Cynthia Lee, appeals the district court's order from October 27, 2003, which denied her motion to reconsider the earlier denial of her motion to set aside a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
Motions to Expedite and Amend Docketing Statementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the motion to expedite but granted the motion to amend the docketing statement.
Reasoning: Additionally, S.L.'s motion to expedite was denied, while her motion to amend the docketing statement was granted.
Oral Argument and Sufficiency of Submitted Materialssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the submitted materials sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues.
Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary since the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.
Timeliness of Notice of Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court limited its review to the October 27, 2003 order because the notice of appeal was not timely filed concerning the underlying judgment or the initial motion to set it aside.
Reasoning: The appeal is limited to the October 27, 2003 order, as S.L.'s notice of appeal was not timely regarding the underlying judgment or her initial motion to set it aside.