Realmuto v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/28/2015. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-4055

October 28, 2015

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:

Mario Realmuto v. Life Insurance Company
of North America
Civil Action No. GLR-14-1386

Dear Counsel:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s, Mario Realmuto, Motion to Reconsider. (ECF
No. 45). The Motion is ripe for disposition. The Court, having reviewed the Motion and related
documents, finds no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2014). For the reasons
that follow, the Motion will be denied.
On July 24, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying Realmuto’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s, Life Insurance Company of
North America (“LINA”), Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 44). The Court found
Realmuto could not, as a matter of law, meet his burden of establishing an entitlement to
additional long-term disability benefits under his employer’s Long-Term Disability Plan and
Group Disability Insurance Policy (the “Plan”). (ECF Nos. 43, 44). Realmuto filed a Motion to
Reconsider on August 7, 2015. (ECF No. 45). LINA then filed a Response in Opposition on
August 24, 2015 (ECF No. 48), and Realmuto filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition on
September 18, 2015 (ECF No. 52).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for
“reconsideration,” Rule 59(e) authorizes a district court to alter or amend a prior final judgment.
See Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 470 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011). A district court
may only alter or amend a final judgment under Rule 59(e) in three circumstances: “(1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”1 Pac. Ins.
Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). A Rule 59(e) amendment is
“an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting Wright, et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)). Furthermore, “[a] motion for
reconsideration is ‘not the proper place to relitigate a case after the court has ruled against a
1

Realmuto attempts to avoid the application of this standard by arguing that he filed his
Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Local Rule 105.10, not Rule 59(e). The Court is not
persuaded. Local Rule 105.10 does not independently establish a right to move for
reconsideration—it merely establishes the deadline for filing motions for reconsideration under
Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60.

party, as mere disagreement with a court’s rulings will not support granting such a request.’”
Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 953 F.Supp.2d 612, 620 (D.Md. 2013) (quoting Sanders
v. Prince George’s Pub. Sch. Sys., No. RWT 08CV501, 2011 WL 4443441, at *1 (D.Md. Sept.
21, 2011)).
Realmuto attempts to relitigate his case by asking the Court to “reconsider its finding that
the surveillance video established that Realmuto was not disabled under the terms of the Plan
and was medically able to perform all of the material duties of his regular occupation.” (Memo
Supp. Mot. for Recons. at 4, ECF No. 45-1). He argues the Court’s reliance on the surveillance
video—which showed Realmuto engaging in a variety of physical activities without signs of any
limitation or restriction—to find Realmuto was not “disabled” under the Plan constitutes a
manifest injustice. The Court disagrees. For the reasons stated in the Court’s July 24, 2015
Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 43), the undisputed Administrative Record, including the video
surveillance, supports the conclusion that Realmuto is able to perform the material duties of at
least two occupations that would meet his Indexed Covered Earnings requirement and for which
he is reasonably qualified. Morevover, Realmuto fails to identify an intervening change in
controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error in the Court’s previous ruling. Accordingly,
Realmuto’s Motion will be denied.
Based on the foregoing reasons, Realmuto’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 45) is
DENIED. Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the
Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.

Very truly yours,
/s/
_______________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

2