Taylor et al v. United States Office of Personnel Management et al

Filing 81

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT re 80 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/16/2015. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Scarlett A. Taylor and Chanel E. Taylor shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on July 17, 2015.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SCARLETT A. TAYLOR, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
)
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00107 SOM/BMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
I.

INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiffs Scarlett A. Taylor and Chanel E. Taylor

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a “Motion – Plaintiffs’
Objection to Order Granting Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Motion for Summary Judgment and Denial of Plaintiffs Compel Dated
June 10, 2015, Received June 16, 2015.”

See ECF No. 80.

The

court construes this document as a motion to alter or amend
judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.1
II.

The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND.
On January 2, 2015, this court dismissed all claims

against Defendants United States Office of Personnel Management
(“OPM”); Katherine Archuleta, in her official capacity as OPM

1

No Defendant has filed a response to Plaintiffs’
document, possibly because Defendants may be construing the
document as an unauthorized “objection” requiring no response,
rather than as a Rule 59(e) motion.

Management Director; Patrick E. McFarland, in his official
capacity as OPM Inspector General; Timothy Watkins, in his
official capacity as Counsel to the OPM Inspector General; Hickam
Air Base OPM Office Supervisor; Cynthia Miike, in her official
capacity as Hickam Air Base OPM Agent; and Federal Employees
Group Life Insurance (“FEGLI”) (collectively, the “Federal
Defendants”).

See ECF No. 45.

Dismissal was based on

Plaintiffs’ failure to seek administrative resolution of their
claims against the Federal Defendants prior to filing suit in
this court.
On June 10, 2015, this court granted summary judgment
in favor of the remaining defendant, MetLife Insurance Company
(“MetLife”).

See ECF No. 78, PageID #s 1380-81.

Plaintiffs’

“Motion to Compel the Office of Personnel Management to Release
the Pay Records of James Patrick Taylor” was denied as moot.
id.
III.

Judgment was entered on June 10, 2015.

See

See ECF No. 79.

STANDARD.
There are four grounds on which a Rule 59(e) motion may

be granted: 1) a manifest error of law or fact upon which the
judgment is based; 2) newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence; 3) manifest injustice; and 4) an intervening change in
controlling law.

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

Cir. 1999).
A Rule 59(e) motion “should not be granted, absent

2

highly unusual circumstances.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255
(quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665
(9th Cir. 1999)).

Rule 59(e) “offers an ‘extraordinary remedy,

to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.’"

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v.

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

A “district

court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying” a
Rule 59(e) motion.
III.

McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 n.1.

ANALYSIS.
Plaintiffs fail to advance grounds entitling them to

relief under Rule 59(e).

Plaintiffs merely state that they

“object” to pages 3 through 10 of this court’s order granting
MetLife summary judgment.

ECF No. 80, PageID # 1385.

explanation of Plaintiffs’ objections is provided.

No

As a result,

Plaintiffs do not present a manifest error of law or fact upon
which the judgment is based, newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening
change in controlling law.

See McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255.

Without even asserting any ground on which to obtain relief under
Rule 59(e), Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief.
Plaintiffs indicate that they intend to file an
additional explanation detailing their objections as soon as
possible.

See ECF No. 80, PageID # 1385.

Plaintiffs, however,

may not seek relief under Rule 59(e) in a piecemeal fashion.
3

To

be entitled to relief, Plaintiffs’ motion itself must demonstrate
that entitlement.

It is now past the deadline for filing a Rule

59(e) motion and, since filing their motion on June 24, 2015,
Plaintiffs have not provided the court with the explanation of
their objections mentioned in their motion.
IV.

CONCLUSION.
Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 16, 2015.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Taylor, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al., Civ.
No. 14-00107 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

4