Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-109
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: ROBERT BENEDICT, Plaintiff, v. HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED, et al., Defendants.

ROBERT BENEDICT, Plaintiff, v. HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

FILED: April 5, 2018

April 4, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA CORPORATION'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT BASED ON CLEAR ERROR OF LAW (ECF No. 367). Defendants' motion was denied by ORDER (ECF No. 391) dated February 28, 2018. This Memorandum Opinion sets out the reasoning for that decision.

BACKGROUND

In this products liability action, Robert Benedict sues Hankook Tire Company Limited ("HTCL") and Hankook Tire America Corporation ("HTAC") for the production and distribution of an allegedly defective tire. Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court's previous ORDER (ECF No. 221) and Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 341) (hereinafter "Original Opinion") granting Benedict's motion for summary judgment as to Defendants' contributory negligence defense.

I. Factual Context

The relevant facts are set out in the Original Opinion (ECF No. 341) that Defendants ask the Court to reconsider, and the Court assumes familiarity with the facts as presented therein. In short, however, this action involves a single-vehicle accident that occurred when the front right tire of a cement truck driven by Benedict suffered a tread separation and the truck thereafter collided with an embankment on the side of the road. (ECF No. 341). The following passage from the Original Opinion is also worth highlighting:

At the time of the accident, the 2014 Virginia Commercial Driver's License Manual (the "CDL Manual"), published by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, was in effect. It apprises commercial drivers of "important information that [they] must know to operate [their] vehicle[s] in a safe and professional manner." It advises drivers facing a tire failure to:

Hold the steering wheel firmly. If a front tire fails, it can twist the steering wheel out of your hand. Keep a firm grip on the steering wheel with both hands at all times.

Stay off the brakes. Braking when a tire has failed could cause you to lose control. Unless you are about to run into something, stay off the brake until the vehicle has slowed down. Then, brake gently and pull off the road.

Check the tires. Even if the vehicle seems to be handling normally. Many timesyou won't know that a dual tire is flat unless you look at it.

(ECF No. 341) (citations omitted).

II. Procedural History

Benedict initially asserted three claims: (1) products liability negligence (including manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn); (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. First Am. Compl. 5-11. As of the filing date of Defendants' motion for reconsideration, Benedict is pursuing only a negligent manufacturing claim against HTCL and an implied warranty of merchantability claim against HTCL and HTAC. Second Am. Compl. 4, 6.¹

In October 2017, Benedict moved for partial summary judgment to bar Defendants' contributory negligence defense. The Court granted Benedict's motion at a hearing held on November 20, 2017, Nov. 20, 2017 Hr'g Tr. 152, and it issued an ORDER (ECF No. 221) on November 27, 2017 and a Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 341) on February 6, 2018 formalizing its decision.

On December 4, 2017 (before the Court released the Original Opinion setting forth the reasoning for its decision), Defendants moved for reconsideration on the ground that the Court had made aclear error of law. On December 5, 2017, the Court denied this motion as premature, but it permitted Defendants to seek reconsideration again after the release of the Court's Opinion. (ECF No. 226). Accordingly, Defendants filed the present motion on February 20, 2018.

DISCUSSION

I. The Proper Ground For Seeking Reconsideration

Defendants move for reconsideration on the authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court "to alter or amend a judgment" based on a motion filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." See Defs.' Br. 1, 3-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); United States v. Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575-76 (E.D. Va. 2013). They also point to Rule 60(b), which allows a court to "relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" on a more extended timeline. See Defs.' Br. 3-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Danielczyk, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 575.

Neither of these Rules, however, is the proper vehicle for seeking reconsideration here. As the District of Maryland has explained:

Orders are only susceptible to reconsideration under Rules 60(b) and 59(e) if they constitute "final judgments." SeeFayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991) ("Rule 60(b) [is] not available for relief from an interlocutory order. Rule 59(e) is equallyapplicable only to a final judgment"). Judgments are generally only final where they adjudicate and resolve all claims as to the parties. SeeMillville Quarry Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 217 F.3d 839, *3 (4th Cir. 2000) (unpublished). An order dismissing fewer than all claims is not a final judgment for which a Rule 60(b) or 59(e) motion is appropriate, but rather an interlocutory motion [sic] that may be contested under Rule 54(b).

Moore v. Lightstorm Entm't, 11-3644, 2013 WL 4052813, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2013). Defendants' motion seeks reconsideration of a decision granting partial summary judgment as to a defense; such a decision certainly does not "adjudicate and resolve all claims as to the parties." See id. "The Fourth Circuit has made clear that where, as here, the entry of partial summary judgment fails to resolve all claims in a suit, Rule 54(d) [sic]—not Rule 59(e) or 60(b)-governs a motion for reconsideration." Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 2d 544, 546 (E.D. Va. 2010); see also Al Shimari v. CACI Int'l, Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (E.D. Va. 2013). Therefore, the Court construes Defendants' motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) rather than under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).

Under Rule 54(b), "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).This Court has described the standards applicable to Rule 54(b) motions in the following way:

The resolution of motions to reconsider pursuant to Rule 54(b) is "committed to the discretion of the district court," which may be exercised "as justice requires." Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 515 (4th Cir. 2003). The Fourth Circuit has made clear that the standards governing reconsideration of final judgments are not determinative of a Rule 54(b) motion. Id. at 515. Yet, many courts in this circuit have appropriately considered those factors in guiding the exercise of their discretion under Rule 54(b). SeeAl Shimari v. CACI Int'l, Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (E.D. Va. 2013); see alsoIn re C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00114, 2013 WL 2949033, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. June 14, 2013) ("[A]lthough a 'motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) is not subject to the strictures of a Rule 60(b) motion,' this district has been 'guided by the general principles of Rules 59(e) and 60(b)' in determining whether a Rule 54(b) motion should be granted." (citation omitted)). Courts generally do not depart from a previous ruling unless "(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 515 (citation omitted).

Zaklit v. Global Linguist Solutions, Inc., 1:14-cv-314, 2014 WL 4161981, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2014); see also Evans v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 148 F. Supp. 3d 542, 544 (E.D. Va. 2015); Al Shimari, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 798. "Absent a significant change in the law or the facts since the original submission to the court, granting amotion for reconsideration is only appropriate where, for example, the court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Evans, 148 F. Supp. 3d at 544 (citations omitted).

Motions for reconsideration are not lightly granted, and "the Court exercises its discretion to consider such motions sparingly." See Shanklin v. Seals, 3:07-cv-319, 2010 WL 1781016, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 3, 2010); see also Wootten v. Virginia, 168 F. Supp. 3d 890, 893 (W.D. Va. 2016). This Court has characterized such motions as an "extraordinary remedy." See Mohamed v. Holder, 1:11-cv-0050, 2015 WL 11121994, at *3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2015); Zaklit, 2014 WL 4161981, at *2 (citations omitted). Indeed, the type of concerns that would warrant reconsideration "rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." Evans, 148 F. Supp. 3d at 544 (citations omitted); Zaklit, 2014 WL 4161981, at *2 (citations omitted).

Consequently, there are substantial limitations on the use of motions for reconsideration. For instance, "[a] party's mere disagreement with the district court's ruling does not warrant a motion for reconsideration." Zaklit, 2014 WL 4161981, at *2; see also Herndon v. Alutiiq Educ. & Training, LLC, 2:16-cv-72, 2016 WL 9450428, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2016) ("Mere disagreement with a court's application of the law does not support a motion forreconsideration." (citations omitted)). Likewise, "[c]ourts do not entertain motions to reconsider which ask the Court to 'rethink what the Court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.'"...