Gierer v. Rehab Medical, Inc.
Filing
41
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider, [Doc. No. 36 ], is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/29/19. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER GIERER ,
Plaintiff,
v.
REHAB MEDICAL INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:17CV2624 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, [Doc.
No. 36]. Defendant opposes the Motion, [Doc. No. 38]. Plaintiff filed a Reply on
November 12, 2018, [Doc. No. 40]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
denied.
On September 30, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision.
Rule 60(b) are used as a vehicle to consider whether there was, in a final
order, some “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged ...; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” In a Rule
60(b) proceeding the moving party must “establish ‘exceptional circumstances' to
obtain the ‘extraordinary relief’ the rule provides.”De Wit v. Firstar Corp., 904
F.Supp. 1476, 1496 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (quoting UnitedStates v. Tracts 10 & 11 of
Lakeview Heights, 51 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir.1995)
Plaintiff is attempting to argue again those matters already argued on the
Motion for Summary Judgment. It is not the purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion to
relitigate those arguments already presented. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987,
990 (8thCir.1999) (“[A motion for reconsideration] is not a vehicle for simple reargument on themerits.”).
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to set out any exceptional circumstances
necessary to obtain the relief Rule 60(b) provides. On this issue Plaintiff continues
attempts to relitigate issues already decided by this court, rather than to enumerate
those aspects of exceptional circumstances as mandated by Rule 60(b).
Conclusion
The Court finds no basis of law or fact to warrant the relief requested by
Plaintiff. The Opinion, Memorandum and Order in this matter will not be or
otherwise affected. The Motion is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider,
2
[Doc. No. 36], is DENIED.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2019.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?