Turner v. Breathitt County Geriatric Corporation
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Reopen Case is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on August 3, 2015. (AWD) cc: COR,Pla via US Mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
TERESA HERALD TURNER,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-89-KKC
Plaintiff,
V.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
BREATHITT COUNTY GERIATRIC
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Teresa Herald Turner’s motion to reopen
the case. (DE 13). The Court received a number of correspondences from Turner indicating
that she wanted to resolve this matter (DE 6, DE 7, DE 9, DE 10), and on May 19, 2015
Turner and Defendant Breathitt County Geriatric Corporation filed a proposed agreed
order stipulating that the parties settled the matter and had resolved their claims (DE 11).
The Court entered the Agreed Order. (DE 12). Turner now seeks—two and a half months
later—an Order setting aside her settlement and reopening the case. (DE 13). For reasons
stated below, the Court will deny Turner’s motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) establishes grounds for reopening a final order.
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding
for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether
previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)
the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Sixth Circuit “case law sets a high bar for granting relief under Rule
60(b).” G.G. Marck & Assocs., Inc. v. N. Am. Invs., Corp., 465 F. App’x 515, 517 (6th Cir.
2012). Rule 60(b) sets a high bar for granting relief because of the policy favoring finality of
judgment, orders, and proceedings. Ford Motor Co. v. Mustangs Unlimited, Inc., 487 F.3d
465, 468 (6th Cir. 2007).
A litigant seeking to reopen a final order must establish that relief is necessary
pursuant to one of the five enumerated categories in Rule 60(b) or that public policy
interests, as set out in subsection (b)(6), strongly favor relief. Id. But relief under subsection
(b)(6) “must include unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity mandate
relief.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quotations omitted). Section (b)(6) should be used
sparingly because “clauses 1–5 of the Rule cover almost every conceivable ground for relief.”
Id. (quotations omitted).
Here, Turner does not contest that she signed the settlement offer or the proposed
agreed order and stipulation. She does not claim that any of the five enumerated categories
in Rule 60(b) apply or that the settlement was unfair. Instead, Turner asserts that she was
“shocked” when she arrived at a pretrial conference that she had mistakenly assumed to be
a jury trial on the merits. (DE 13 at 1.) She claims that she “had to take[ the Defendant’s
settlement] offer” at the pretrial conference without substantiating why she could not have
rejected the offer. (DE 13 at 1.) The Court finds that any claim that Turner did not want to
settle the case is not credible because she repeatedly stated, in letters filed with the Court,
that she wanted to resolve the case.
2
Therefore, because Turner failed to identify a particularized reason the Court should
grant relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) and she failed to establish facts indicating an “unusual
and extreme situation[ ] where principles of equity mandate relief,” Ford Motor Co., 487
F.3d at 468, the Court finds that Turner has not met her burden and the Court will not
reopen this matter.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (DE 13) is DENIED.
Dated August 3, 2015.
3
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?