Hollis v. Discover

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00430-KDB-DCK
PATRICE HOLLIS,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISCOVER,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Patrice Hollis’ Motion for Relief from
Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see (Doc. No. 20), after the Court
granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss her Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court has
carefully considered this motion, and for the reasons discussed below, will DENY the motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a district court to grant a party relief from a
final judgment or order in certain circumstances, including: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) new evidence; (3) fraud; (4) void judgment; (5) satisfied, released, or
discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Stratton v. Mecklenburg County,
2012 WL 6194505 *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Before a party may seek
relief under Rule 60(b), the party first must show timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair
prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances. Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993).
Rule 60(b)(1)
A “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1) occurs when “the judge has made a substantive mistake
of law or fact in the final judgment or order,” as well as where “a party has made an excusable
Case 3:25-cv-00430-KDB-DCK Document 21 Filed 07/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
litigation mistake,” and “neglect” includes a party’s “inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as
well as … intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.” Justus v. Clarke, 78 F.4th 97,
108 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996)).
And the Fourth Circuit has defined “excusable” as “an equitable [inquiry], taking account of all
relevant circumstances … including the danger of prejudice to the [nonmovant], the length of the
delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.”
Id. (quoting Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 533 (4th Cir. 1996))
(internal quotations and additional citation omitted). “The most important … factor[] ... for
determining whether ‘neglect’ is ‘reasonable’ is the reason for the delay.” Id. (quoting Thompson,
76 F.3d at 534).
However, “excusable neglect” does not include “ignorance of the rules, or mistakes
construing the rules.” Thompson, 76 F.3d at 533 (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993)). Likewise, “Rule 60(b)(1) relief is not available to
a party who simply misunderstands the consequences of his deliberate acts.” Mills v. E. Gulf Coal
Preparation Co., LLC, No. CIV.A. 5:08-0260, 2011 WL 867477, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 22,
2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:08-CV-00260, 2011 WL 867350 (S.D.W. Va.
Mar. 14, 2011) (quoting Cashner, 98 F.3d at 577). See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193,
198 (1950) (“There must be an end to litigation someday, and free, calculated, deliberate choices
are not to be relieved from.”); El-Bey v. North Carolina, No. 3:17-cv-272-FDW, 2017 WL
4707034, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2017) (declining to grant Rule 60(b)(1) relief where a pro se
plaintiff failed to appreciate the consequences of motions he submitted to the court).
Case 3:25-cv-00430-KDB-DCK Document 21 Filed 07/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff identifies no mistake of law or fact in the Court’s order dismissing her claims.
Moreover, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend her pleading: she could have filed (or sought
leave to file) an Amended Complaint at any point between initiating this action in June 2025, and
the Court’s dismissal eleven months later. She also had almost two months between Defendant’s
filing of the motion to dismiss and the Court’s order granting that motion in which she could have
attempted to cure the deficiencies asserted by Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff made a “voluntary,
deliberate[, and] free” choice to oppose the motion and maintain that her “Complaint contain[ed]
sufficient factual allegations … to support [her] claims.” Doc. No. 13 at 2.
That the Court ultimately disagreed does not constitute excusable neglect or mistake under
Rule 60(b)(1), nor does it excuse Plaintiff’s failure to amend or seek leave to amend before
judgment was entered. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for relief under Rule
60(b)(1).
Rule 60(b)(6)
Finally, Rule 60(b)(6) is “available only in narrow circumstances.” BLOM Bank SAL v.
Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 211 (2025). Relief under this catch-all provision is appropriate only
when necessary to “accomplish justice.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d
46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Absent “truly extraordinary
circumstances, however,” such consideration cannot overcome the “fundamental principle of
finality of judgments.” Golden Corral Corp. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., No. 25-1682, --- F.4th ---,
2026 WL 2035399, at *1 (4th Cir. July 15, 2026). “Our common law system” depends upon finality
to ensure that parties may move forward once their dispute had been adjudicated. Id. “Finality of
judgments [likewise] permits our case law to develop without unwarranted disruption.” Id. This
“rigorous standard applies [even] when a Rule 60(b)(6) movant seeks to reopen a case for the
Case 3:25-cv-00430-KDB-DCK Document 21 Filed 07/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
purpose of filing an amended complaint.” BLOM, 605 U.S. at 206. Here, Plaintiff identifies no
such extraordinary circumstance, and her request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) will therefore be
denied.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under Rule
60(b),1 her Motion for Relief from Judgment will be denied.
I. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to maintain this matter as closed in accordance with this
Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
1 Although Plaintiff cites Rule 60(b)(3) as an additional basis for relief, she offers no facts
or argument to support its application. Because Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(3), the request is denied.
Signed: July 17, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00430-KDB-DCK Document 21 Filed 07/17/26 Page 4 of 4