Olson v. Alick

234 F.3d 1273 (7th Cir. 2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P filed suit alleging that Alick's Drugs, Inc. (D) fired him from his job as a pharmacist due to a disability and his age. P filed pro se, but several months later obtained counsel. Those same attorneys resigned from the case when P withdrew consent to participate in a settlement conference. The district court granted the motion for the attorneys to withdraw, but deferred ruling on P's request for a continuance until the November 30 pretrial conference. In its written order, the court 'advised' P to attend in person or by new counsel. By 1:05, P was not present. Ds' lawyer replied that P had made a hurried telephone call from work the previous evening that left him 'with the distinct impression that there would not be anybody here.' D moved for dismissal. The district court dismissed under Rule 16(f). The very next day, P wrote a letter to the court, explaining that he tried to attend the pretrial conference but did not arrive at the courthouse in South Bend until 1:10 p.m. P gave explanations for being late and not attending the settlement conference. P also filed a motion to set aside the dismissal also adding that he tried to warn D’s counsel he would be late for the pretrial conference but learned counsel had already left for the conference. D interpreted his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), which permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. The district court denied the motion in that P had offered 'neither a showing of excusable neglect nor hope for better performance in the future. P appealed.