Satterlee v. Allen Press, Inc., 05-4022-JAR.
| Decision Date | 06 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-4022-JAR.,05-4022-JAR. |
| Citation | 455 F.Supp.2d 1236 |
| Parties | Karla SATTERLEE, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN PRESS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
David O. Alegria, McCullough, Wareheim & Labunker, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff.
J. Steven Massoni, Massoni Law Office, LLC, Lawrence, KS, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration, to Alter or Amend the Judgement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60 and Local Rules 5.4.11 and 7.3." (Doc. 47.) On July 31, 2006, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs claims under federal law ("July 31 Order"). (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this decision. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Court denies plaintiff relief.
At the outset, the Court notes that outside of citation to the federal and local rules above, plaintiff fails to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why this Court should grant the motion for reconsideration. Instead, plaintiff makes a sweeping assertion in the opening paragraph in the memorandum in support of this motion that this relief is warranted because plaintiffs counsel mistakenly failed to file supporting documents to plaintiff's response to defendant's summary judgment motion. Thereafter, plaintiff spends twenty pages rehashing arguments that were presented in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. The Court is extremely disturbed by plaintiffs counsel's lack of citation to legal authority, his failure to explain why the Court should grant plaintiffs motion for reconsideration under the federal and local rules, and his use of this motion as an opportunity to reargue the summary judgment motion. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze plaintiff's motion under the appropriate standard as described below.
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60, and D. Kan. Rules 5.4.11 and 7.3. D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a) provides that "[m]otions seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must be filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60." The Court will analyze plaintiffs motion under these various rules in turn.
A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted only if the moving party can establish: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.1 Such a motion does not permit a losing party to rehash arguments previously addressed or to present new legal theories or facts that could have been raised earlier.2
In her motion, plaintiff fails to articulate this standard, much less provide any reason as to why a motion to alter or amend should be granted under this standard. Plaintiff cannot meet the first basis for granting a Rule 59(e) motion because she does not allege an intervening change in the controlling law. To the extent plaintiff believes that she has met the second basis because she is presenting new evidence, the Court rejects that argument. Plaintiff is attempting to present evidence that her counsel failed to file with the Court when she responded to defendant's summary judgment motion. None of the exhibits are new evidence. The exhibits consist of deposition transcripts, letters and other documents that were all in existence before the Court issued the July 31 Order. In fact, plaintiff admits this by stating that the supporting documents were "quoted, selected, assembled and prepared, for filing" when plaintiff filed her response to defendant's summary judgment motion.3 Plaintiffs counsel "erroneously believed" that the supporting documents had been filed, and plaintiff now asks that "such documents [] be included in the record as part of this motion."4 Because plaintiff is not seeking to introduce new evidence, she fails to meet the second basis for granting a motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Plaintiff also cannot show that her motion should be granted under the third basis. A Rule 59(e) motion should be granted only "`to correct manifest errors of law"' in the Court's decision.5 To the extent plaintiff argues that her counsel's failure to properly attach supporting documents to her summary judgment response is a basis for granting a Rule 59(e) motion, this failure was not a manifest error by the Court requiring alteration or amendment to the judgment. Rather, this was an error by counsel. Further, plaintiff does not allege that this relief is needed to prevent manifest injustice. Thus, because plaintiff has not established that relief is warranted under Rule 59(e), her motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to this Rule is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is "an extraordinary procedure permitting the court that entered judgment to grant relief therefrom upon a showing of good cause within the rule."6 Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered; . . . (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
This rule attempts to reflect the policy goals of preserving the finality of judgments while pursuing justice "in light of all the facts."7 Rule 60(b) "`should be liberally construed when substantial justice will thus be served.'"8 The decision to grant relief under Rule 60(b) is left to the sound discretion of the trial court9
In a motion under Rule 60(b), the movant has the burden to plead and prove justifiable grounds for relief permitted by the rule.10 Whether a movant has established "`mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect' is an issue to be `litigated on the merits.'"11 "`The trial court must determine whether excusable neglect has in fact been established, resolving all doubts in favor of the party seeking relief.'"12
In this case, plaintiff fails to articulate any grounds for granting her Rule 60 motion, much less explain to the Court why plaintiffs counsel's failure to attach supporting documents to the summary judgment response is a basis for relief under one of these grounds. In her reply, plaintiff states that she "believes that under Rule 60, plaintiff mistakenly failing to submit the supporting document to her answer to defendant's motion, the inadvertence in submitting the documents and/or excusable neglect all provide appropriate bases [for relief]."13 Plaintiff cites no case law to support her argument, and provides no legal analysis as to why the failure to submit supporting documents was mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Thus because plaintiff, as the moving party, has failed to plead and prove justifiable grounds for relief, the Court denies plaintiff's motion under Rule 60.
Even if the Court were to address plaintiffs Rule 60 motion on these grounds, her motion would be denied. "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."14 As described in more detail below, the Court does not find that plaintiffs counsel committed an excusable litigation mistake. Further, the Tenth Circuit has found that counsel's failure to include supporting documents in a summary judgment response was not an "excusable litigation mistake" under Rule 60(b).15 Thus, relief under this ground is denied.
Relief would also be denied as to plaintiffs claims of excusable neglect and inadvertence. Excusable neglect is a "somewhat `elastic concept' and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant."16 The Supreme Court has stated:
In other contexts, we have held that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys . . . . This principle applies with equal force here and requires that respondents be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their chosen counsel. Consequently, in determining whether respondents' failure . . . was excusable, the proper focus is upon whether the neglect of respondents and their counsel was excusable.17
Moreover, the Tenth Circuit and courts in this district have declined to find attorney carelessness or negligence constitutes "excusable neglect" sufficient to set aside judgment.18 Further, the Circuit also stated in Servant of Paraclete v. Does that "inadvertence by an attorney is not a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)."19 The Court recognizes, however,, that the Tenth Circuit recently proclaimed that while the panel in Servants of the Paraclete "spoke categorically in that case," the court "had no intention of rejecting the plain, language of the rule."20
The Tenth Circuit has described the plain language of the rule as follows:
More generally, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kan.
...13 ¶ 57, 16 ¶ 68, 18 ¶ 77.) 12. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; D. Kan. R. 56.1; (Pretrial Order, Doc. 53 at 40.) 13. See Satterlee v. Allen Press, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 1236 (D.Kan.2006); Ney v. City of Hoisington, Kan., No. 05-4059-JAR, 2007 WL 608263 (D.Kan. Feb.22, 2007); Rojo v. IBP, Inc., No. 02-4......
-
Degraw v. Technologies, Case No. 09–4016–RDR.
...through the exercise of due diligence; or 3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Satterlee v. Allen Press, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1241 (D.Kan.2006) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir.1995)). A motion for reconsideration is an......
-
Lujan v. Exide Techs.
...IBP, Inc., No. 02-4112-JAR, 2007 WL 593637 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2007), aff'd, 278 Fed. App'x 850 (10th Cir. 2008); Satterlee v. Allen Press, Inc., 455 F. Supp.2d 1236 (D. Kan. 2006). Local Rule 56.1(b)(1), and (d) specifically provides:(b)(1) Opposing Memorandum. A memorandum in opposition to ......
-
In re Jarvis
...required elements have been satisfied. Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357, 365-366 (6th Cir.1990); Satterlee v. Allen Press, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1242 (D.Kan.2006). Once the movant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of going forward with sufficient evidence to controver......