Seeking leave to amend

SCOTUS unanimously held that Rule 60(b)(6) controls motions to reopen judgments, even when the purpose of reopening it to amend the complaint. Rule 15(a)(2)'s liberal ethos for amendment does not come into play until after the court agrees that 60(b)(6) is satisfied and reopens the judgment.

Justice Jackson did not join Part III of the majority opinion. The court had dismissed the complaint; it asked plaintiffs whether they wanted leave to amend and to replead; they declined to replead and instead appealed. The court of appeals affirmed dismissal, although it "clarified" some points of law and rejected part of the trial court's analysis. On plaintiffs' motion to reopen, the district court made three points: 1) the "clarification" of law was not an extraordinary circumstance; 2) amendment was futile even under the clarified standard; and 3) plaintiffs were partly at fault because they appealed the dismissal rather than taking an opportunity to replead. The majority found no abuse of discretion in denying the 60(b) motion as to all three.

Jackson disagreed with that last point. Plaintiffs should be able to appeal to challenge or clarify a dismissal, rather than amending (or seeking to amend) one or more times as a precondition to appealing and seeking to reopen if the appeal fails. The strategic choice to appeal the dismissal rather than plead and replead should not be held against them if they can otherwise satisfy 60(b)(6) (which plaintiffs could not do in this case but might in other cases).

I think she is right.