Case Analysis 4 Fact Patterns

1. Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy

The main issue in this case is whether Larry the Cable Guy should be granted the appeal on the default ruling considering his argument that he was not properly notified.

This is a motion to vacate default judgement. Rule 60(b) (1) provides grounds for relief from a final judgement stating that a judge might relieve a party from a final judgement order based on “… mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”

Where default judgement is made against a defendant, there are provisions within the law that allow them to seek to vacate or set aside the decision. Rule 60 provides grounds for Relief from a judgement or order. The grounds that the petitioner makes his case are that there was a contravention of Rule 4 as it provides for in the procedure for summons notification in order to reverse the default judgement against him that was based on Rule 55 (a) as (c) states that “…(c) The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b).”

A similar ruling was made in the case of Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc. The court threw out the motion to set aside the request the default judgment based on Rule 55(c) which gave it the discretion to “set aside an entry of default at any time before judgment”. As such, all other provisions withstanding, it was still the court’s discretion to allow or disallow the application as guided by the premise of the law.

As Larry had constantly received but ignored notifications of the summons, and he was well aware that in breaching the contract he stood culpable and therefore liable for legal action, his appeal should be declined and the default judgement declined. In arriving at this decision, it is important to consider that all summonses had been done in line with Rule 4 and Larry knew about them and chose to avoid them. This disqualifies him from being able to use the Rule 60 (b) (1) provision as he had no excusable neglect and there were no clerical errors. A consideration of Rule 59 (e) which provides that "A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment" should also be made.

The default judgment should be affirmed and the appeal thrown out.

2. W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

The main issue in this case is whether admission of testimony by Reeves by the judge in light of the provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act contributes to a reversible error.

This is a liability for negligence case whose main focus is on the possibility of legal error. The Federal Employers Liability Act provides substantial grounds for a railroader worker to be compensated should there be injuries while on the job. The Central of Georgia Railway Company had a vicarious liability to compensate Reeves.

The Federal Employers Liability Act was mainly designed to offer compensation for some of the injuries but not all the related costs are thereby imposed as the Act does not make the employers insurers. The only liability imposed by the act is the liability for negligence. Admission of evidence that would considerably disenfranchise the employer as the defendant therefore should be guided by the interpretation of relevant laws. The evidence that was given by Reeves was best sought from a qualified physician as provided by Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Lavender v. Kurn, 327 US 645 - Supreme Court 1946 considers the use of evidence that could result to irreversible error in a case that used hearsay evidence. The ruling provided that reversible error only appears where “… there is complete absence of probative facts that support the conclusions.” The testimony presented by Reeves has no weighed value against the already provided probative facts and is therefore of no consequence for him. It however prejudices the defendant. Rule 701 (c) provides that where a witness is not testifying as an expert, their evidence cannot be “based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” The evidence should therefore be from an expert in Article VII.

According to Rule 403 on Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons, relevant evidence could be excluded if it leads to unfair prejudice and could mislead the jury. According to Rule 105 the court could admit the evidence, on timely request, could use the evidence but restrict it “…to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.” In consideration that the employer is not to be considered an insurer according to the act, the evidence is not admissible and allowing it will lead to reversible error.

3. Paris Hilton v. Lindsey Lohan

The main issue in this case is what argument should be made by an attorney for Paris Hilton in light of the prevailing circumstances leading to the award of a default judgement to Lindsey Lohan against her.

The case involves issues in breach of contract and vacating a default judgement in light of legal procedures followed. According to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual has a fundamental right to a free and fair judicial hearing and there is need for the process to be procedural.

The purpose of the due process of the law is to ensure that every one is well protected from unfairness in substantive and procedural law. As such there are laid out methods that should be used to enforce legal rights in judicial processes without intrusion or omission. The impartiality of judicial officers is important and they should be objective when dealing with all regardless of their personal feelings towards them. It is important to ensure that in exercising their mandate towards such people they follow the set procedures of the law. These are provided for on the basis of natural justice.

This issue was examined in R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet. In the case, Lord Hoffmann’s judgement was set aside due to possible bias. In consideration, the bias disenfranchised Pinochet of his rights as the House of Lords judge was linked to Amnesty International thereby increasing the possibility of personal bias.

While the summons and notification were procedurally done, the attorney needs to check for clerical mistakes to be the basis of the motion of vacation. It is also important to establish Paris’ excusable negligence. The attorney then needs to dispute the impartiality and fairness of the judge and the procedural irregularities in seeking justice in a different state.

References

Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc., 524 So. 2d 600 (Ala. 1988).

Lavender v. Kurn, 327 US 645 - Supreme Court 1946

R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet, 2001 A.C.1 119 (2001).