## Facts

- The United States filed civil forfeiture actions under 21 U.S.C. § 881 against three parcels titled to Feliberto Flores, alleging they were purchased with drug proceeds.
- One parcel, 7108 West Grand Avenue in Chicago, was titled solely in Feliberto’s name.
- Feliberto was incarcerated on federal drug charges during the forfeiture proceedings.
- Feliberto and his wife, Isabellita Flores, retained attorney Robert Habib to represent them in the forfeiture matters.
- Habib failed to file timely claims for Feliberto as to any of the properties and filed a verified claim for Isabellita as to only one parcel (not 7108 West Grand Avenue).
- The government sought default judgment as to 7108 West Grand Avenue; neither Habib nor Isabellita appeared at the default hearing, and the district court entered a default forfeiture judgment.
- Habib did not seek a statutory stay of the civil forfeiture during the parallel criminal proceedings and did not file a timely notice of appeal.
- With new counsel, Feliberto and Isabellita moved for relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b), asserting defenses including purchase with lottery winnings and an “innocent owner” claim; they argued Habib’s performance amounted to gross negligence that should not be attributed to them.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b) relief, and the Floreses appealed that denial.

## Issues

1. Whether a party may obtain relief from a default civil forfeiture judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on the party’s attorney’s gross negligence in failing to timely assert claims, appear, or pursue appellate relief.
2. Whether attorney “gross negligence” constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” under Rule 60(b)(6), such that the attorney’s omissions are not imputed to the client.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
- The court held that attorney negligence, even if characterized as gross, is imputed to the client and does not justify reopening the default forfeiture judgment.
- The court concluded that the proper remedy for the alleged misconduct was a malpractice action against counsel, not renewed litigation against the government.
- The default judgment forfeiting 7108 West Grand Avenue to the United States remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under agency principles, a client is bound by the acts and omissions of retained counsel in civil litigation.
- Rule 60(b) relief is limited; attorney error ordinarily falls within the client’s responsibility and does not warrant setting aside a final judgment.
- Rule 60(b)(6) requires circumstances beyond ordinary litigation risks; labeling counsel’s failures “gross negligence” does not, by itself, convert attorney error into “extraordinary circumstances.”
- Finality interests limit post-judgment reopening, particularly where the opposing party relied on procedural default and the expiration of deadlines.
- Availability of a malpractice remedy against counsel supports denying Rule 60(b) relief premised on counsel’s deficient performance.

## Conclusion

The court held that a default civil forfeiture judgment will not be reopened under Rule 60(b) based on a claimant’s assertion that prior counsel was grossly negligent; the client bears the consequences of counsel’s litigation failures and must seek relief, if any, through malpractice rather than re-litigating against the government.


United States v. 7108 W. Grand Ave., 15 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1994)