Herbert N. Palmore, et al v. Monsanto Company, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15748
________________________
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00777-KOB
HERBERT N. PALMORE,
LULA M. PALMORE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 22, 2016)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and
CHAPPELL,* District Judge.
__________
*Honorable, Sheri Polster Chappell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 15-15748 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
We have had the benefit of oral argument in this case, and have carefully
reviewed the briefs and relevant parts of the record. For the reasons fully explored
at oral argument, we conclude that there are multiple grounds on the basis of which
the judgment of the district court could be affirmed, and we conclude that the
judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
For example, plaintiffs fall far short of satisfying the five-element test set
forth in Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 79 (5 th Cir. 1970).1 See
also Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1551 (11 th Cir. 2003). The five
elements that have to be proved to state a claim in an independent action to set
aside a prior, final judgment are as follows:
(1) a judgment which ought not, in equity and good conscience, to be
enforced; (2) a good defense to the alleged cause of action on which
the judgment is founded; (3) fraud, accident, or mistake which
prevented the defendant in the judgment from obtaining the benefit of
his defense; (4) the absence of fault or negligence on the part of
defendant; and (5) the absence of any adequate remedy at law.
Bankers Mortg., 423 F.2d at 79 (quoting Nat’l Sur. Co. v. State Bank, 120 F. 595,
599 (8th Cir. 1903)).
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
October 1, 1981.
Case: 15-15748 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
With respect to prong five of that test, plaintiffs here clearly had an adequate
remedy at law in the form of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion “filed in the district
court and in the action in which the original judgment was entered.” Bankers
Mortg., 423 F.2d at 78. Nor have plaintiffs pointed to any fraud, accident or
mistake (third prong) on the part of defendants or the court that entered the
judgment. And, to the extent that plaintiffs claim that there was a mistake in the
calculations made by the court that entered the judgment, the plaintiffs have failed
to establish “the absence of fault or negligence” on their part (fourth prong).
Finally, plaintiffs have not established that the judgment “ought not, in equity and
good conscience, to be enforced” under the first prong of Bankers Mortgage and,
similarly, have not proven that the judgment is a “grave miscarriage of justice,”
which the Supreme Court has found necessary to support an independent action to
set aside a judgment. United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47, 118 S.Ct. 1862,
1868 (1998).
For this reason,2 and for the other reasons fully explored at oral argument,
we conclude that the judgment of the district court must be
AFFIRMED.
2 We also reject the plaintiffs’ argument with respect to those plaintiffs who were minors
represented by a guardian ad litem at the time the challenged judgment was entered. We agree
with the district court’s application of Elliott v. Navistar, Inc., 65 So.3d 379 (Ala. 2010), to the
facts of this case.
Case: 15-15748 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --