Robbe v. Webster University

Filing 110

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. # 103 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 5/11/17. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LILY ROBBE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY,
Defendants,

No. 4:14CV1223 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [Doc. #103]. Defendant opposes the Motion.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
On April 10, 2017, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
granting Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff now
seeks to have the Court alter or amend its order.
ARule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it >may not be
used to re-litigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.= 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure ' 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.1995) (footnotes omitted).@
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 n. 5 (2008). Rule 59(e) was adopted to
1

clarify that Athe district court possesses the power to rectify its own mistakes in the
period immediately following the entry of judgment.@ White v. New Hampshire
Dep=t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982) (internal quotations omitted).
Moreover, ARule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.@ Innovative Home
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T .-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th
Cir. 1998),(internal punctuation and citations omitted). ASuch motions cannot be
used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.@ United States v.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting
Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286)).
District courts Awill ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration unless the
party demonstrates a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or demonstrates
new facts or legal authority that the party could not have previously produced with
reasonable diligence to the court.@ ElderBKeep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 988 (8th
Cir.2006); Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 2011 WL 322672 at *4
(E.D.Mo. Jan.31, 2011); Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th
Cir.2010). A motion to reconsider Acannot be used to raise arguments which could
have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment.@ Hagerman v. Yukon Energy
2

Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988). District courts have Abroad discretion@ in
determining whether to reconsider judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 413.
Rule 60(b) provides relief from a final judgment , order or proceeding under
circumstances where there has been some mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for new trial; fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; the judgment is void; 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 any other
reason that justifies relief.
In her Motion, Plaintiff attempts to persuade the Court to grant relief from its
findings which led to the conclusion that this Court must enter order to uphold and
enforce the settlement order on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff has presented nothing
new, nor has she pointed the Court to any mistake so severe as to establish manifest
error under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff has not articulated any arguments or facts that
would even facially compel relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Instead she has reiterates
the same arguments which were the basis of her original Motion and argument at the
hearing. The Court articulated its reasoning in finding that Plaintiff was not entitled
to a ruling in her favor on her Motion to Enforce Settlement and that defendant was
3

entitled to a favorable ruling. Nothing has changed, nor should the Opinion,
Memorandum and Order in this matter be altered or amended.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,
[Doc. #103] is denied.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2017.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4