Al-Ameri et al v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 11/22/2016. (dass, 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

November 22, 2016
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE:

Saeed Al-Ameri, et al. v. The Johns Hopkins
Hospital
Civil Action No. GLR-15-1163

Dear Counsel:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’, Saeed Al-Ameri and Tina Assouidi Al-Ameri,
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 44). The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is
necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
deny the Motion.
The relevant background facts are set forth in the Court’s June 24, 2015 Letter Order
(ECF No. 23). This matter arises out of various claims alleging medical malpractice against
Defendant, The Johns Hopkins Hospital (“the Hospital”). (Compl., ECF No. 3). On April 29,
2015, the Al-Ameris filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. (ECF No. 13). The Court denied
the Motion to Remand on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 23).1 On June 22, 2016, the Al-Ameris filed
the pending Motion. (ECF No. 44). The Hospital filed a Response on July 1, 2016 (ECF No.
45), and the Al-Ameris filed a Reply on July 15, 2016. (ECF No. 46).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for
“reconsideration,” Rule 54(b) provides that any order “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims
of the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” United
States District Court for the District of Maryland Local Rule 105(10) states, “[e]xcept as
otherwise provided in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 50, 52, 59, or 60, any motion to
reconsider any order issued by the Court shall be filed with the Clerk not later than fourteen (14)
days after entry of the order.” (emphasis added).
Here, the Al-Ameris brought their Motion for Reconsideration on June 22, 2016, almost
one year after the Court denied their Motion to Remand. (ECF Nos. 23, 44). While the AlAmeris acknowledge Local Rule 105(10), they nevertheless argue that its fourteen day deadline
1

Also pending before the Court is the Hospital’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply
(ECF No. 21). The Hospital’s proposed Sur-Reply was in opposition to the Al-Ameris’ Motion
to Remand. (Id.). Because the Court denied the Motion to Remand, the Court directs the Clerk
to dismiss as moot the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.

is subject to Rule 60(c), which only requires that motions for reconsideration be brought “within
a reasonable time.” But reconsideration of the Motion to Remand is governed by Rule 54(b), not
Rule 60(c). The Court’s Order denying the Motion was an interlocutory order that adjudicated
“fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities” of the parties, rather than a final judgment
under Rule 60(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In their Reply, the Al-Ameris alternatively argue that the
Court is “well within its discretion” to review a previous order under Rule 54(b). (Pls.’ Reply
Def.’s Opp. Pls.’ Mot Recons. at 3, ECF No. 46). This discretion, however, is still subject to the
fourteen-day deadline prescribed by Local Rule 105(10), and this Local Rule does not create any
exceptions under Rule 54(b). Because the Al-Ameris filed their Motion for Reconsideration well
past the fourteen-day deadline, the Court will deny the Motion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Al-Ameris’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 44) 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