Johnston v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 74 motion for reconsideration. Signed on September 29, 2017, by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
COMMERCE BANCSHARES, INC., and
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This ERISA action arises from Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America’s
(“Prudential”) decision to terminate Plaintiff John Johnston’s (“Plaintiff”) long-term disability
benefits under a policy purchased by Defendant Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (“Commerce”).
Plaintiff alleges Prudential and Commerce improperly terminated benefits to which he was
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 74) of the Court’s
decision to grant summary judgment to Defendant Prudential.
Plaintiff brings the motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Motions to alter or amend a judgment brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) “serve a limited
function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). They
cannot be used to introduce evidence that could have been offered during the pendency of the
motion, or “to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the
judgment.” Preston v. City of Pleasant Hill, 642 F.3d 646, 652 (8th Cir. 2011). A district court
has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant a Rule 59(e) motion. Briscoe v. Cty. of
St. Louis, Mo., 690 F.3d 1004, 1015 (8th Cir. 2012).
The Court has read Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and finds it does not contain
any new evidence or arguments which could not have been presented previously. Accordingly,
the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 74) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 29, 2017
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?