Renasant Bank Inc. v. Earth Resources of Franklin Co, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Earth Resources of Franklin County LLC and John F. Smithgall. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion for attorney's fees filed by Appellee Renasant Bank Inc. is DENIED. [8154861-3]; Motion to dismiss appeal as frivolous filed by Appellee Renasant Bank Inc. is DENIED. [8154861-2]. (See 09/06/2017 opinion)(CRW/BBM/RLA) The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 17-11419 Date Filed: 09/06/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11419 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00143-CDL RENASANT BANK INC., Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARTHRESOURCES OF FRANKLIN COUNTY LLC, JOHN F. SMITHGALL, Defendants - Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (September 6, 2017) Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-11419 Date Filed: 09/06/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Renasant Bank sued EarthResources of Franklin County and John F. Smithgall to enforce a promissory note and personal guaranty. The district court entered judgment against EarthResources and Smithgall in 2013, and our court affirmed. Renasant Bank, Inc. v. Earth Res. of Franklin Cty., LLC, 537 F. App’x 889 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). In 2017, EarthResources and Smithgall, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed with the district court a motion for relief from final judgment and a motion to reopen discovery. The district court denied the motions. EarthResources and Smithgall now appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, however, we find no reversible error. EarthResources and Smithgall have not “demonstrate[d] a justification so compelling that the district court was required to vacate its” judgment. See Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the “heavy” burden a party has on appeal when it is challenging a district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief). AFFIRMED. 1 1 Renasant’s motion for damages and costs for frivolous appeal is DENIED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?