The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of Francisco Deras's case against Johnson & Johnson. This decision, issued on October 7, 2026, stems from Deras's failure to comply with local court rules regarding the appointment of local counsel. The ruling impacts Deras and potentially other plaintiffs facing similar procedural hurdles in employment-related cases.
In the original case, Deras filed a lawsuit against his employer, Johnson & Johnson, on July 30, 2025. He claimed violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On the same day, the district court issued a notice requiring Deras's attorney to appoint local counsel within 14 days. This requirement is outlined in Local Rule 83.10(a) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. However, Deras's attorney failed to meet this deadline, leading to the dismissal of the case on August 14, 2025, without prejudice.
The dismissal order allowed Deras the opportunity to reopen the case if he could show that the dismissal functioned as a dismissal with prejudice. On the same day of the dismissal, Deras moved to reopen the case, citing the required notice of appearance of local counsel and arguing that the failure to comply was due to excusable neglect. The district court denied this motion, stating that Deras did not demonstrate that the dismissal without prejudice was equivalent to a dismissal with prejudice. Deras subsequently filed a second motion to reopen, which was also denied.
Deras appealed the district court's decision, and the Fifth Circuit initially ruled in his favor, stating that the lower court had not adequately considered the relevant factors regarding excusable neglect. The appellate court vacated the lower court's denials and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court acknowledged the Pioneer factors that govern excusable neglect but ultimately ruled that Deras's excuse was merely an inadvertent mistake by counsel and did not meet the high standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
The Fifth Circuit's ruling on October 7, 2026, confirmed the district court's decision. The court stated, "The district court's decision 'need only be reasonable.'" The judges found that the lower court's focus on the reason for the delay was appropriate, even though it did not elaborate on the other Pioneer factors. The court emphasized that inadvertent mistakes or ignorance of the law are generally insufficient grounds for reopening a case under Rule 60(b)(1).
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving procedural compliance in employment law. It highlights the importance of adhering to local rules and the potential consequences of failing to do so. Plaintiffs like Deras who may face similar situations must ensure they understand and comply with all procedural requirements to avoid dismissal of their claims.
The court's decision reinforces the idea that mistakes made by attorneys, especially regarding local rules, may not be enough to warrant reopening a case. This sets a precedent for similar cases in the Fifth Circuit, potentially discouraging parties from relying on claims of excusable neglect unless they can provide compelling reasons.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Deras will seek further appeals or if there are related cases pending that could influence this matter. The court filing did not provide details on any potential appeals or other related litigation.