Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Ravello Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 78

ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf's 62 Motion to Amend the complaint is DENIED; (2) defs' 65 Motion to Quash post-judgment discovery is DENIED, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/27/19. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ALABAMA MUNICIPAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAVELLO SOLUTIONS, LLC,
CHEYENNE HOLDINGS, LLC,
and THOMAS ROSENCRANTS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv685-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (doc.
no. 62) is denied.
(2) Defendants’

motion

to

quash

post-judgment

discovery (doc. no. 65) is denied.
***
Plaintiff brings its motion to amend the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

But that

rule “governs amendment of pleadings before judgment is
entered;

it

has

no

application

after

judgment

is

entered.”
F.3d

Jacobs

1327,

original).

v.

1344

Tempur-Pedic

(11th

Cir.

“Post-judgment,

Int’l.,

the

626

(emphasis

2010)

Inc.,

in

plaintiff

may

seek

leave to amend if he is granted relief under Rule 59(e)
or

Rule

60(b)(6).”

Id.

at

1344–45

(quoting

United

States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1361
n.22 (11th Cir. 2006)).
The court entered judgment confirming the arbitral
award on September 4, 2018.

Plaintiff had 28 days

after entry of judgment to move to alter or amend that
judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

It did not do

so.
That
that,

leaves

upon

relieve

a

Rule

“motion
party

60(b)(6).

and

“from

just
a

That

terms,”

final

rule
the

judgment,

provides

court

may

order,

or

proceeding” for “any ... reason that justifies relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).

Plaintiff did not move for

relief from the court’s judgment of September 4, 2018.
Nor

could

it,

unless

plaintiff
2

wishes

to

upset

a

judgment that confirmed an arbitral award in its favor.
Because plaintiff did not seek relief under Rules 59(e)
or

60(b)(6),

its

motion

to

amend

the

complaint

was

denied.
As to defendants’ motion to quash, they concede
that the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend
the complaint moots their objections to post-judgment
discovery.

Defendants also state that, notwithstanding

their arguments against post-judgment discovery, they
“acknowledge
Plaintiff’s

and

agree

Motion

[to

that

if

the

amend

the

Court

complaint],

denies
then

Defendants are subject to post-judgment discovery as to
the assets and disposition of assets of [defendants]
Ravello and Cheyenne.”
at

4.

Rosencrants

Defendants
“would

Defendants’ Reply (doc. no. 75)
“also
then

agree”
be

that

subject

defendant
to

such

post-judgment discovery, but only insofar as it relates

3

to Ravello and Cheyenne.”* Defendants’ motion to quash
post-judgment discovery was therefore denied based on
defendants’ concessions.
DONE, this the 27th day of March, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* Although defendants object to post-judgment
discovery generally, they have not identified any
specific
discovery
request
as
overbroad,
unduly
burdensome, or outside the scope of discovery.
The
court declines to take up a specific discovery dispute
until one actually arises.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33
(stating
that
the
grounds
for
objecting
to
an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 (stating that a party objecting to a request
for production must specify what part of the responsive
materials it is withholding).
4