Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case involving the court’s application of the plain error doctrine to reverse and remand a trial court’s order vacating a default judgment. The plain error doctrine is generally not favored and is applied only in exceptional circumstances where the error seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.
Chris provided the analysis for Securities Online Litigation Alert (SOLA). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SOLA, please visit the SOLA website to sign up for the newsletter.
Scaccia vs. Fidelity Investments, No. 2013-cv-0907 (Ohio App., 1/11/19)
The plain error doctrine is generally not favored and is applied only in exceptional circumstances where the error seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.
In 2014, Fidelity found itself between two brothers, John (the Plaintiff) and Brian (the Defendant), both laying claim to their mother’s assets. Fidelity settled with John, and the claims against it were dismissed with prejudice. In April, John, appearing pro se, obtained a default judgment against Brian who failed to answer the complaint. A magistrate judge then recommended awarding John $47,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against Brian. Brian, also appearing pro se, did not object to the magistrate’s recommendation, but on June 2, moved to vacate the default judgment. Brian relied on Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B), which sets out conditions under which a party may be relieved of his obligations under a final judgment. On June 3, the trial court entered a final judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision and awarding damages to John. Brian’s appeal was filed too late and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In January 2018, however, the trial court granted Brian’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Unlike his brother, John timely appealed.
Applying the plain error doctrine, the Court reverses and remands, instructing the trial court to vacate the vacatur. The Court notes that a default judgment is not a final judgment until a decision on damages has been made and concludes the trial court erred in considering Brian’s Rule 60(B) motion because it was filed before the final judgment was entered. The Court recognizes that pre-emptive motions for Rule 60(B) relief are often construed as motions for reconsideration or for enlargement of time, however, the Court concludes that because the trial court issued a final judgment without ruling on Brian’s motion, the motion was presumed to have been denied. The Court expresses no sympathy for Brian, noting that he attempted to raise the denial of his motion in his untimely appeal and that pro se litigants are presumed to know the law and legal procedures and are held to the same standards as persons represented by counsel. As a result, the Court finds the final judgment awarding John damages should stand.