Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
No. 22-1252. 8/1/2025. D.Colo. Per Curiam. Automobile Liability Insurance—Coverage for Specified Vehicles—Summary Judgment.
August 1, 2025
Waetzig sued his former employer, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton), for age discrimination. He voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 41(a) and arbitrated his claim as required by his contract. The arbitrator ruled for Halliburton, and rather than filing a new lawsuit challenging arbitration, Waetzig moved to reopen his age discrimination case and vacate the arbitration award. The district court concluded it had jurisdiction to consider Waetzig’s motion based on Rule 60(b), and it reopened the case and vacated the arbitration award. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under Rules 41(a) and 60(b), a court cannot set aside a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is not a final judgment, order, or proceeding. It thus held that the district court could not reopen the case. Waetzig appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court held that a voluntarily dismissed case has the characteristics of a final proceeding because it terminates the case and is a formal step toward judgment in a case and therefore may be reopened under Rule 60(b). The Court made clear that its resolution was antecedent to the jurisdiction question and remanded for further proceedings on whether the district court could exercise jurisdiction over Waetzig’s motion to vacate.
On remand, Halliburton argued that the district court erroneously reopened the case because Waetzig’s motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1) and inappropriate for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Under Rule 60(b), a proceeding can be reopened where extraordinary circumstances justify relief. The district court found that Waetzig demonstrated extraordinary circumstances because after he voluntarily dismissed his case, the US Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022). The Court reasoned that Badgerow changed the law on the justiciability of arbitration matters in federal court and presumptively precluded Waetzig from bringing a new case, so allowing Waetzig to reopen the dismissed case solved the jurisdiction issue. However, Badgerow resolved a circuit split on an issue on which the Tenth Circuit had never taken a position, so no binding Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court law was at issue. And under Tenth Circuit case law, an underlying law change is not sufficient to warrant extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Further, Waetzig could have moved to abate rather than dismiss his case pending the arbitration. Additionally, Waetzig conceded that his motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1). Accordingly, he cannot reopen his case under any provision of Rule 60(b).
The judgment was affirmed.