Todd Phillippi v. Humble Design, L.L.C., et al.

On 8/5/16 a civil case in the Northern District Dallas Division was dismissed by way of a FRCP4l(a)(l)(A)(ii) agreed dismissal without a court order. After the FRCP4l(a)(l)(A)(ii) the Magistrate allowed the Defendants to seek awards of attorney fees as “Prevailing Parties” despite there being no “Judicial Imprimatur”. In 2018, Petitioner appeared in the suit under FRCP 60b as a “legal representative”. The Original parties had been dismissed from the suit. Petitioner did not sign or file a consent to the Magistrate under 28 USC 636 (c). The Magistrate, sua sponte, denied Petitioners 60b motion without any opposition having been filed. Petitioner timely filed Rule 72 objections. The Chief District Judge held that the consents of the original dismissed parties was the consent of petitioner, who appeared in the matter 2 (two) years after the FRCP 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii) agreed dismissal of the original parties. 1.) Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have created an exception to 28 USC 636 (c) by holding that a FRCP 60(b) “Legal Representative” is bound by the consent of the dismissed parties after a FRCP 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii) agreed dismissal 2.) Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have created an exception to Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 601, 121