Katz v. Safeco Insurance Company
ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-10405
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT ORDER
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 41)
On March 23, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendant. Dkt.
39. Plaintiff has now filed a motion titled “Motion to Amend/Correct Order on
Motion for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. 41. Within that Motion, Plaintiff invokes
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) and asks for relief from the Court’s
summary judgment order.
Under Rule 59, the Court may alter its judgment where there is “(1) a clear
error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling
law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Nolfi v. Ohio Ky. Oil Corp., 675
F.3d 538, 551-52 (6th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff points to no newly discovered evidence or
intervening change in controlling law. Nor does Plaintiff explain any error of law;
she merely makes the same arguments she made during the briefing of the motions
for summary judgment. And Plaintiff offers no explanation of why there would be
manifest injustice if the Court did not alter its judgment.
Under Rule 60, the Court may grant relief from a final judgment when there is:
(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). Relief under Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary relief” to be granted
only in exceptional circumstances. Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202
(1950); Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1281 (6th Cir. 1991); Hopper v. Euclid
Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir. 1989). Exceptional
circumstances under Rule 60(b) mean “unusual and extreme situations where
principles of equity mandate relief.” Olle v. Henry & Wright Corp., 910 F.2d 357,
365 (6th Cir.1990). A claim of simple legal error, unaccompanied by extraordinary
or exceptional circumstances, is not cognizable under Rule 60(b). Pierce v. UMW
Welfare & Retirement Fund, 770 F.2d 449, 451 (6th Cir. 1985). Here, Plaintiff does
not argue that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant relief from the
Court’s judgment; she merely reiterates the same arguments made during the
briefing of the motions for summary judgment.
The Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration
based on Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s analysis. If Plaintiff had
captioned her request as a motion for reconsideration, however, the motion would
have been untimely. Under Local Rule 7.1(h), a party may move for reconsideration
of a Court’s decision within 14 days of the entry of judgment or order. E.D. Mich
L.R. 7.1(h)(1). Plaintiff filed her motion 28 days after the Court entered judgment in
favor of Defendant, and as a motion for reconsideration it must be DENIED as
Even applying the standards of Rules 59(e) and 60, however, because Plaintiff
bases her motion on the same arguments advanced during summary judgment
briefing rather than on an error of law, offers no explanation of why the Court’s
order granting summary judgment to Defendant would create manifest injustice,
and points to no exceptional circumstances that demand relief, Plaintiff’s motion is
Dated: December 29, 2016
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on December 29,
2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties.
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?