that it be transferred to the District of Nevada.5 Thompson did not respond which
prompted plaintiff’s counsel to file an unopposed motion for leave to withdraw which I
Shortly thereafter, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss for failure
to prosecute. Upon receipt of the Order granting that motion, Thompson contacted her
former counsel and explained that she had been in Philadelphia taking care of her
daughter who had been severely injured in a car accident. The Order dismissing
Thompson’s claims had been forwarded to her by an acquaintance who was living in
Thompson’s residence in Nevada during her absence. Thompson has asked to have the
Thompson’s motion cites no applicable rules, but as a motion to reopen an action,
the motion must fall under either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.6 I will construe this motion as one for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b) because it was filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment, a requirement
of Rule 59. District courts have a great deal of discretion to grant relief under Rule 60(b),
5 Thompson claims disparate treatment while working in a factory in Nevada. The factory was allegedly owned and operated by defendant Merck. She never worked for Merck within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
6 The motion and its memorandum of law concentrate on why the case should not be dismissed, rather than on why it should be reopened. As shown above, the case has already been dismissed.