Melcher, et al. v. City of San Luis, et al.

Filing 158

ORDER denying 151 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/6/2012.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV06-1235-PHX-DGC

Paul Melcher, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

City of San Luis, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Defendants filed a motion on June 1, 2012, seeking to re-open this case for the

15

purpose of amending the judgment to add an award of costs. Doc. 151. The motion has

16

been fully briefed. Docs. 151, 156, 157. The Court will deny the motion as untimely.

17

Defendants bring their motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b)(1),

18

which governs the entry of judgments for costs. That rule does not provide for the re-

19

opening of judgments, and Defendants cite no case law suggesting that judgments can be

20

re-opened under Rule 58.

21

Rule 59 governs the amending of judgments, but it places a strict time limit on

22

motions seeking such relief. Rule 59(e) states that “[a] motion to alter or amend a

23

judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 59(e). The Court cannot extend this time period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).

25

Defendants could have filed a motion within 28 days of the judgment on March 13, 2008,

26

noting that they had sought a recovery of costs and asking the Court to amend the

27

judgment to include any costs ultimately awarded. Doc. 122. Because Defendants’

28

failed to do so, their motion untimely.

1

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to re-open the case is denied.

2

Dated this 6th day of August, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐