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)

Download PDF
    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 ‐ 

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?