AQUINO
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal order was denied because no extraordinary circumstances were presented to warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an action on behalf of his uncle for withheld VA benefits. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extraordinary Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
DARREN AQUINO, as next of friend of FERNANDO GUAD, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, MARY
HOWARD WINTER, JOSE
RIVERO, DAVID NALS,
MARILYN MOLINA, DAVID
POST, ANGELA J. JONES, and
UNKNOWN VA FIDUCIARY
OFFICIALS, Defendants. Case No.: 2:25-cv-281-SPC-NPM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Darren Aquino's Rule 60 motion to vacate the Court's dismissal order. (Doc. 33). Aquino, proceeding without counsel, brought this action on behalf of his uncle, Fernando Guad, for withheld VA benefits. The Court dismissed Aquino's complaint because (1) the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and (2) Aquino cannot represent Guad pro se since he is not a licensed attorney. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff now moves to vacate this Order under Rule 60(b).
Under Rule 60(b), “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for six specifically identified reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6). A Rule 60(b) motion is intended "only for extraordinary circumstances” and the requirements of the rule must be strictly met. Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F. 3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000). Motions under Rule 60(b) “are directed to the sound discretion of the district court." Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F. 2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984).
In his motion, Aquino presents no extraordinary circumstances to warrant vacating the Court's dismissal order. The only ground he offers that is worth mentioning is his claim that the Court misidentified Aquino as the Plaintiff rather than Gaud, the real party in interest. Even assuming this is true, this does not alter the fact that Aquino cannot represent Gaud or that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. So this case would be dismissed either way. [fn 1]
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Aqunio's Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
2
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 8, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
[fn 1]: Although Aquino filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 14), the Court retains jurisdiction to deny a Rule 60(b) motion. See Mahone v. Ray, 326 F. 3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vick Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Mahone v. RAY, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2003)