## Facts

- Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. (BMF) sued Traditional Baking, Inc. (TBI) in a contract dispute involving bakery equipment; the case was removed to the Northern District of Illinois on diversity grounds.
- BMF’s counsel repeatedly failed to comply with basic procedural requirements and court orders, including failing to file an appearance, failing to make Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, and missing deadlines to respond to TBI’s amended counterclaim.
- After missed deadlines and noncompliance, TBI moved for default and sanctions; the district court initially denied default without prejudice and ordered compliance.
- The district court sanctioned BMF’s counsel $1,375 and directed counsel to provide the sanctions order to BMF; counsel did not do so.
- TBI served extensive discovery, including a large set of requests for admissions; BMF’s counsel failed to respond, exposing BMF to deemed admissions under Rule 36.
- The district court ordered counsel to file an appearance, pay sanctions, comply with electronic filing requirements, and warned that failure to comply by a set date would result in striking BMF’s pleadings and entry of default.
- Counsel did not comply; the district court struck BMF’s pleadings and entered default judgment for TBI on its counterclaim.
- BMF later asserted counsel misrepresented the status of the litigation and that BMF learned of the default months later; BMF replaced counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying relief from default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on BMF’s attorney’s repeated misconduct and alleged misrepresentations to the client.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of BMF’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the attorney’s misconduct did not amount to “extraordinary circumstances” warranting vacatur.
- The court emphasized the district court’s incremental use of sanctions and clear warnings before imposing the ultimate sanction of default.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from a final judgment only for “extraordinary circumstances” and is applied narrowly.
- Clients are generally bound by the acts and omissions of their chosen counsel; attorney negligence or serious mismanagement is typically imputed to the client.
- Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) may be available when counsel’s conduct is so extreme that it effectively deprives the client of its day in court, such as abandonment tantamount to no representation.
- A record showing repeated noncompliance, escalating sanctions, and explicit warnings supports the propriety of default and weighs against post-judgment relief.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that, despite substantial attorney misconduct and resulting default, the circumstances did not meet Rule 60(b)(6)’s exceptional threshold, and the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment.


Bakery Machinery & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2009)