Macarthur v. San Juan County

• Decision Date: 15 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. Civ. 2:00-CV-584BSJ.,Civ. 2:00-CV-584BSJ.
• Citation: 405 F.Supp.2d 1302
• Parties: Dr. Steven MACARTHUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Donna SINGER, Fred Riggs, and Allison Dickson, Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, San Juan Health Services District, Commissioner Tyron Lewis, Commissioner Bill Redd, Craig Halls, Richard Bailey, Reid Wood, Roger Atcitty, John Lewis, Karen Adams, Patsy Shumway, and Lauren Schafer, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

Page 1302

405 F.Supp.2d 1302

Dr. Steven MACARTHUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v.SAN JUAN COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Donna SINGER, Fred Riggs, and Allison Dickson, Plaintiffs, v.SAN JUAN COUNTY, San Juan Health Services District, CommissionerTyron Lewis, CommissionerBill Redd, Craig Halls, Richard Bailey, Reid Wood, Roger Atcitty, John Lewis, Karen Adams, Patsy Shumway, and Lauren Schafer, Defendants.

No. Civ. 2:00-CV-584BSJ.

United States District Court, D. Utah.

December 15, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Susan Rose, Sandy, UT, for Plaintiffs.

Jesse C. Trentadue, Michael W. Homer, Thomas B. Price, Suitter Axland, Kathleen M. Liuzzi, Dunn & Dunn, Blaine J. Benard, Carolyn Cox, Holme Roberts & Owen, Robert R. Harrison, David W. Slagle, Snow, Christensen & Martineau, Christine T. Greenwood, Magleby & Greenwood PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION(Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)/60(b)), AND OTHER MATTERS

JENKINS, Senior District Judge.

This court entered its final Declaratory Judgment (28 U.S.C.A. § 2201(a)) & Judgment & Order of Dismissal in the above-captioned action on October 31, 2005(dkt. no. 848)("October 31st Judgment").On November 7, 2005, plaintiffs Singer, Riggs and Dickson filed a Motion for Clarification, Reconsideration and Amendment of that judgment (dkt. no. 849), with a supporting memorandum (dkt. no. 850).On November 10, 2005, plaintiff Valdez filed a "Motion to Reconsider and Amend the October 31, 2005 Order and Allow Her to Amend Her Amended Complaint,"(dkt. no. 855), with a supporting memorandum (dkt. no. 856); plaintiffs Lyman and MacArthur also filed a "Motion to Reconsider and Amend the October 31, 2005 Order and Allow Her to Amend Their Amended Complaint,"(dkt. no. 857), with a supporting memorandum (dkt. no. 858).¹

The defendants filed a series of responsive memoranda,² and plaintiffs Singer Riggs and Dickson filed three reply memoranda.³The motions were calendared for hearing on November 30, 2005.At the November 30th hearing, Susan Rose, Esq. appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs; Carolyn Cox, Esq. and Robert R. Harrison, Esq. appeared on behalf of the San Juan Health Services Districtdefendants; and Jesse Trentadue, Esq. appeared on behalf of the San Juan Countydefendants.The court heard the arguments of counsel, and having reviewed and considered the memoranda submitted by the parties as well as this court's prior opinions and orders, ruled on the plaintiffs' motions, denying them in each instance.(See Minute Entry, dated November 30, 2005(dkt. no. 871).)

For the sake of clarity of the record in this matter, the court has elected to elaborate upon the reasons for its rulings on the plaintiffs' three Rule 59(e)/Rule 60 motions as well as setting forth in writing the court's rulings on prior motions heard on October 25, 2005.

A.Applicable Standards under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) & 60(b)

According to the court of appeals, "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a post-judgment motion may `aris[e] under either Rule 59(e)(motion to alter or amend the judgment) or Rule 60(b)(relief from judgment for mistake or other reason).The[se] two rules serve different purposes and produce different consequences, both substantive and procedural.'Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,862 F.2d 161, 168(8th Cir.1988)(citation and footnote omitted)."Jennings v. Rivers,394 F.3d 850, 854(10th Cir.2005).

In this case, plaintiffs' counsel has asserted bothRule 59(e)andRule 60(b) as bases for plaintiffs' three motions for reconsideration, filed within ten days of the entry of the court's October 31st Judgment.⁴Counsel points to Rule 60(a) as well.

Generally, Rule 59(e) motions"should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence."Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.,225 F.3d 1179, 1186 n. 5(10th Cir.2000);Phelps v. Hamilton,122 F.3d 1309, 1324(10th Cir.1997)(same);see alsoBrumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp.,57 F.3d 941, 948(10th Cir.1995)(noting that the requirements for motions for reconsideration are "an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice").

Motions for "reconsideration" will not be granted absent "highly unusual circumstances" — they do not provide litigants with an opportunity for a "second bite at the apple" or allow them, like Emperor Nero, to "fiddle as Rome burns", or license a litigation "game of hopscotch", allowing parties to switch from one legal theory to a new one "like a bee in search of honey".Such motions are not vehicles for relitigating old issues.Courts properly decline to consider new arguments or new evidence on reconsideration where those arguments or evidence were available earlier.

Steven Baicker-McKee, William M. Janssen & John B. Corr, Federal Civil Rules Handbook 962 (2006 ed.)(footnotes omitted).

Rule 60(b)(1) provides that

"[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment.... for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect...."It "is an extraordinary procedure" which "`seeks to strike a delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the desire to preserve the finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court's conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.'"Cessna Fin. Corp.,715 F.2d at 1444(quotingSeven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi,635 F.2d 396, 401(5th Cir.1981)(additional internal quotation marks omitted)).The rule "should be liberally construed when substantial justice will thus be served."Id.

"The guidelines governing a district court's consideration of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion ... are well established."Id. at 1445.Whether the movant has demonstrated "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" is an issue to be "litigated on the merits."Id."The trial court must determine whether excusable neglect has in fact been established, resolving all doubts in favor of the party seeking relief."Id.

Jennings v. Rivers,394 F.3d 850, 855-856(10th Cir.2005);see alsoYapp v. Excel Corp.,186 F.3d 1222, 1231(10th Cir.1999)("Rule 60(b)(1) motions premised upon mistake are intended to provide relief to a party in only two instances: (1) when the party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without authority; or (2) when the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order.SeeCashner,98 F.3d at 576(citing7 James Wm. Moore et. al., Moore's Federal Practice¶ 60.22[2](2d ed.1985))....[T]he kinds of mistakes remediable under a Rule 60(b)(1) motion are litigation mistakes that a party could not have protected against ...");Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc.,98 F.3d 572, 577(10th Cir.1996)("If the mistake alleged is a party's litigation mistake, we have declined to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(1) when the mistake was the result of a deliberate and counseled decision by the party.").Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(1)"only for obvious errors of law, apparent on the record.Alvestad v. Monsanto Co.,671 F.2d 908, 912-13(5th Cir.)(relief under Rule 60(b)(1) limited to `perfunctory correction' of obvious errors of law), cert. denied,459 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 489, 74 L.Ed.2d 632(1982);see alsoRocky Mountain Tool & Mach. Co. v. Tecon Corp.,371 F.2d 589, 596-97(10th Cir.1966)(`palpably erroneous award' of interest from date of filing counterclaim rather than from date of entry of judgment correctable under Rule 60(b)(1))."Van Skiver v. United States,952 F.2d 1241, 1244(10th Cir.1991).

Rule 60(b)(4) provides for relief where "the judgment is void":

A judgment is void for Rule 60(b)(4) purposes if the "rendering court was powerless to enter it."V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc.,597 F.2d 220, 224(10th Cir.1979).A judgment may in some instances be void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.E.g.id.;In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation,502 F.2d 834, 842(10th Cir.1974)."However, this occurs only where there is a plain usurpation of power, when a court wrongfully extends its jurisdiction beyond the scope of its authority."Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.,624 F.2d 822, 825(8th Cir.1980)(citations omitted);accordNemaizer v. Baker,793 F.2d 58, 65(2d Cir.1986)(observing that collateral attack is permitted under Rule 60(b)(4) where there is "a clear usurpation of power by a district court, and not an error of law in determining whether it has jurisdiction")(citations omitted).

A court does not usurp its power when it erroneously exercises jurisdiction.Kansas City Southern,624 F.2d at 825."Since federal courts have `jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction,' that is, `power to interpret the language of the jurisdictional instrument and its application to an issue by the court,' error in interpreting a statutory grant of jurisdiction is not equivalent to acting with total want of jurisdiction."Id.(quotingStoll v. Gottlieb,305 U.S. 165, 171, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104(1938));see alsoLubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Board No. 27,453 F.2d 645, 649(1st Cir.1972)("While absence of subject matter jurisdiction may make a judgment void, such total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction.")(footnote omitted).There must be "no arguable basis on which [the court] could have rested a finding that it had jurisdiction."Nemaizer,793 F.2d at 65.

Gschwind v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,232 F.3d 1342, 1346(10th Cir.2000), cert. denied,533 U.S. 915, 121 S.Ct. 2520, 150 L.Ed.2d 693(2001);see also Annotation, Lack of Jurisdiction, or Jurisdictional Error, as Rendering Federal District Court Judgment "Void" for Purposes of Relief under Rule 60(b)(4) of Federal Rules of Civil...