Background
While the court was preparing to address the government’s pending motion to dismiss and plaintiff Dr. Kay L. Rogerson’s motion for summary judgment, Rogerson submitted three motions seeking relief under RCFC 60(b) from a 1996 settlement with the United States Air Force. That settlement had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
Rogerson argued that she misunderstood the settlement, that the government misrepresented its scope, and that the agreement was void, inequitable, or fundamentally unfair. Two of the motions were signed by her daughter, Dana K. DeVine, but the court liberally construed them as Rogerson’s filings. DeVine separately moved to intervene, alleging that the settlement and resulting litigation caused a loss of inheritance and asserting breach-of-contract and illegal-exaction theories.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Federal Claims denied all three motions to vacate. It held that RCFC 60(b) permits the court to grant relief only from its own judgments, not from a settlement or judgment filed in another federal court. Because the Court of Federal Claims lacks independent, substantive equitable jurisdiction to vacate the South Dakota district court proceeding, it could not grant the requested relief.
The court also held that the motions were untimely. Claims under RCFC 60(b)(1) and (3) were filed nearly 30 years after the settlement, well beyond the one-year deadline. Claims under RCFC 60(b)(4) and (6) were not brought within a reasonable time because Rogerson had challenged the settlement through litigation for approximately 26 years.
The court denied DeVine’s motion to intervene as untimely and independently deficient under RCFC 24. DeVine waited roughly two and a half years after she knew or should have known about the case, and intervention in the 15-year-old action would prejudice the government. She also identified no statutory right to intervene, direct and immediate legally protected interest, or claim sharing a common question of law or fact with Rogerson’s case.
Key Takeaways
- RCFC 60(b) does not authorize the Court of Federal Claims to vacate a settlement or judgment entered in another court.
- Rule 60 motions remain subject to strict timing requirements; decades of prior challenges defeated any argument that Rogerson acted within a reasonable time.
- A prospective intervenor must move promptly and demonstrate a direct, legally protected interest or a qualifying common claim; a contingent inheritance allegation was insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores both the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims and the finality protected by Rules 60 and 24. Parties generally cannot use a long-running Claims Court action to obtain equitable relief from another federal court’s decades-old proceeding.
The order resolved only the three motions to vacate and DeVine’s intervention request. It did not decide the government’s pending motion to dismiss or Rogerson’s pending motion for summary judgment.