Smith v. Iron Workers District Council of Southern Ohio & Vicinity Pension Trust et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS the Funds 27 Motion to Reconsider and VACATES its Order setting deadlines for responding to the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/20/17. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DEBORAH SMITH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL )
OF SOUTHERN OHIO AND VICINITY )
PENSION TRUST, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-368-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Deborah Smith filed a Complaint in State Court [ECF No. 5]
against Defendants Iron Workers District Council of Southern Ohio and Vicinity Pension Trust
(“the Fund”) and Garland Smith, which was removed to Federal Court on August 25, 2017 [ECF
No. 1]. On August 31, 2017, the Fund filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record
[ECF No. 7], as well as a Motion to Change Venue [ECF No. 8]. The Plaintiff responded to the
Motion to Change Venue on September 14, 2017 [ECF No. 16], but did not respond to the
Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, and the Fund replied on September 20, 2017
[ECF No. 20]. On November 16, 2017, the Fund requested a status conference [ECF No. 16,
2017] regarding the procedural posture of its Motions and indicated that it would consider
withdrawing its Motion to Change Venue if the Court were to agree that the Motion for
Judgment on the Administrative Record was ripe. On November 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
denied the Fund’s request for a hearing [ECF No. 23], set a deadline for the Fund to withdraw its
Motion to Change Venue, and agreed that the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative

Record was ripe for consideration. The Fund filed a Motion to Withdraw its change of venue
request [ECF No. 24], which the Magistrate Judge granted on November 20, 2017 [ECF No. 25].
On December 14, 2017, the Court sua sponte set deadlines for responses and replies to
the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [ECF No. 26]. The Fund filed a Request
for Reconsideration on December 15, 2017 [ECF No. 27].
“Unlike motions to reconsider final judgments, which are governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59 or 60, a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order [under Rule 54(b)] may
be entertained and granted as justice requires.” Azko Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 909 F. Supp.
1154, 1159 (N.D. Ind. 1995). Rule 54(b) provides in relevant part:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
A court may reconsider prejudgment interlocutory decisions at any time prior to final judgment.
In re 949 Erie St., Racine, Wis., 824 F.2d 538, 541 (7th Cir. 1987) (citing Cameo Convalescent
Ctr., Inc. v. Percy, 800 F.2d 108, 110 (7th Cir. 1986)).
The Court finds that reconsideration of its Order setting responsive deadlines would be in
the interests of justice. As the Fund points out, the Magistrate Judge previously indicated that
that the deadline for the Plaintiff to respond to the Fund’s Motion for Judgment on the
Administrative Record has passed (See ECF No. 23), and the Plaintiff has not offered reasons
demonstrating good cause for her failure to respond. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Fund’s
Motion to Reconsider [ECF No. 27] and VACATES its Order setting deadlines for responding to
the Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [ECF No. 26].

2

SO ORDERED on December 20, 2017.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3