## Facts

- Tony Marcelli sued over a dispute involving an indemnification agreement in Michigan state court and lost; the Michigan Supreme Court denied further review.
- Marcelli then filed a second state-court action seeking to set aside the adverse judgment.
- The Oakland County Circuit Court granted summary judgment against Marcelli in the second action on res judicata grounds, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Marcelli next filed a third lawsuit in federal district court against multiple defendants, asserting various federal and state claims tied to the same underlying dispute.
- The federal district court ordered Marcelli to file a “Case Statement” certifying that his claims complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
- Rather than submit the ordered certification, Marcelli’s counsel filed a response stating the claims had been filed under an erroneous belief that they complied with Rule 11 and stipulated that the federal case should be dismissed.
- The district court dismissed the federal action with prejudice based on the stipulation.
- About sixteen months later, Marcelli moved to reopen the case, asserting that his attorney had acted without his authorization in agreeing to dismissal with prejudice.
- Marcelli sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), including an “independent action” and relief for alleged fraud on the court.
- The district court denied the motion to reopen, and Marcelli appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Marcelli was entitled to reopen a case dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 60(d) based on his claim that counsel lacked authority to agree to the dismissal.
2. Whether Rule 60(d) permits a party to obtain post-judgment relief where the asserted problem is counsel’s mistake or unauthorized litigation decision, outside Rule 60(b)’s ordinary framework.
3. Whether the circumstances alleged by Marcelli amounted to “fraud on the court” warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3).

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Marcelli’s motion to reopen.
- The court held that Marcelli did not satisfy the demanding requirements for a Rule 60(d) independent action.
- The court concluded that Rule 60(d) cannot be used as a substitute for, or to avoid the limits of, Rule 60(b) when the complaint is essentially attorney error or lack of client authorization.
- The court rejected Marcelli’s fraud-on-the-court argument because the alleged conduct did not constitute the type of egregious corruption of the judicial process required for Rule 60(d)(3) relief.
- The dismissal with prejudice remained effective.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b) provides the usual avenue for relief from a final judgment for specified reasons and within defined time limits.
- Rule 60(d) preserves narrow, historical equitable remedies; it is not a general mechanism to reopen final judgments whenever Rule 60(b) relief is unavailable or time-barred.
- An “independent action” under Rule 60(d) is available only in exceptional situations and typically requires a showing that:
  - the judgment should not, in equity and good conscience, be enforced;
  - the movant has a meritorious claim or defense;
  - fraud, accident, or mistake prevented the movant from presenting that claim or defense in the original action;
  - the movant was not at fault; and
  - no adequate remedy at law exists.
- Delay in seeking relief and the availability of ordinary post-judgment procedures weigh against independent-action relief.
- “Fraud on the court” under Rule 60(d)(3) is limited to extreme misconduct that harms the integrity of the judicial process itself; disputes about attorney authority or litigation choices generally do not qualify.

## Conclusion

In Marcelli v. Walker, the court of appeals affirmed the refusal to reopen a federal case that had been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation after counsel stated the claims had been filed under an erroneous belief of Rule 11 compliance. The court held that Marcelli’s claim that counsel acted without his consent did not meet the strict standards for a Rule 60(d) independent action and did not show fraud on the court, and Rule 60(d) could not be used to sidestep Rule 60(b)’s ordinary limits on post-judgment relief.


Marcelli v. Walker, 2009 WL 415998 (2009)