As the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday analyzed judicial powers to reopen dismissed cases, a Halliburton attorney sought to steer oral arguments toward questions the high court hadn't agreed to address, testing some justices' patience and eventually prompting the attorney to insist he wasn't "afraid of the question presented."
The maneuvering occurred during arguments in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc., a technical dispute involving civil procedure, and it was apparently anticipated by Vincent Levy of Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, counsel for a onetime Halliburton account leader whose termination at age 66 spurred him to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Question Presented in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services
Whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under FRCP 60(b).
Levy kicked off his argument Tuesday by contending that voluntary dismissals without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 are "final proceedings" and therefore eligible for reopening under FRCP 60. But he swiftly shifted to accusing Halliburton of deflecting attention from that issue.
Halliburton did so during briefing, Levy said, by disputing court jurisdiction over Gary Waetzig's objection to an arbitration award — an issue where Halliburton might have stronger odds of success.
"[Halliburton] mostly avoids these points" about Rules 41 and 60, Levy said. "It leads by asking the court to affirm on the new theory that the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award after reopening the case. This objection is not covered by the question presented."
Levy reiterated that point a few minutes later after Chief Justice John Roberts asked if Waetzig — who lost in a 2-1 decision at the Tenth Circuit — is now trying to "collaterally attack the arbitration award" in an end-run around jurisdictional barriers.
Levy acknowledged that Waetzig is assailing the award favoring Halliburton. But he stressed that distinct legal issues apply to the reopening of Waetzig's case — which was mistakenly dismissed rather than being stayed and needs Rule 60 relief because limitation periods have expired — and Waetzig's assertions that an arbitrator flouted procedural requirements.
"Those [arbitration] issues do not go to the question presented," Levy said.
During briefing, Halliburton spotlighted the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which curtailed the ability of courts to find a basis for jurisdiction when asked to vacate arbitration awards. On Tuesday, while Levy was still delivering his argument, Justice Elena Kagan said Waetzig would "have a tough row to hoe on the Badgerow question," but she added, it "doesn't seem to be the jurisdictional question that's in front of us."
