Reynolds v. Credit Management Services, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER denying 76 motion to alter or amend. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (JDR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KENNETH REYNOLDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
)
INC., JASON MORLEDGE, MEGAN L.)
BISCHOFF, and MICHAEL
)
MORLEDGE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV391

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Kenneth Reynolds’
(hereinafter “plaintiff”) motion to alter or amend (Filing No.
76).

The matter has been fully briefed by the parties.

Filing Nos. 77, 79, and 85.

See

After review of the motion, the

parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Court finds as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2016, the Court issued an order denying
the motion of defendants, Credit Management Services, Inc.,
Michael Morledge, Jason Morledge, and Megan Bischoff (hereinafter
“defendants”), for summary judgment (“February 25, 2016, order”).
(Filing No. 75).

The February 25, 2016, order also denied

plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and motion to
certify a class.

(Id.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on

March 11, 2016, “requesting the Court alter or amend its order

denying [p]laintiff’s motions for partial summary judgment and
motion for class certification.”

(Filing No. 76 at 1).

LAW
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit has determined that although “[a] ‘motion for
reconsideration’ is not described in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure . . . such a motion is typically construed either as a
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, or as a Rule
60(b) motion for relief from judgment.”

Auto Servs. Co., Inc.,

v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Sanders
v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988)).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Rule 59(e)

“[a] motion to

alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Rule

60(b) provides parties “[g]rounds for [r]elief from a [f]inal
[j]udgment, [o]rder, or [p]roceeding.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

party may seek relief under Rule 60(b) “[o]n motion and just

A

terms” when at least one of six reasons outlined by the Rule’s
subparts applies.

See id.

“A district court has broad discretion in determining
whether to grant or deny a motion to alter or amend [a]
judgment.”

United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440

F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).

The Federal Rules “allow a court
-2-

to vacate a judgment or order and to reopen a case in certain
limited circumstances such as newly discovered evidence.”

Knopik

v. Amoco Corp., No. Civ. 97-1134 MJD/JGL, 2003 WL 172917, at *1
(D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2003) (citing Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210,
215 (8th Cir. 1996)).

“Motions for reconsideration also serve

the purpose of correcting a manifest error of law or fact,” and
“may be justified on the basis of an intervening change in the
controlling law.”

Knopik, 2003 WL 172917, at *1 (internal

citations omitted).

The Eighth Circuit has also held that

motions brought under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) are
to be analyzed identically.

See Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,

440 F.3d at 933 n.3.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends the Court ought to alter or amend
the February 25, 2016, order because the “Court’s ruling . . .
does not consider or discuss the recent decisions in either
Powers v. Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 8:11CV436, 2016 WL
612251 (D. Neb. Feb. 2, 2016) (summary judgment) . . . or Powers
v. Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 8:11CV436, ---F.R.D.---, 2016
WL 409996 (D. Neb. Feb. 2, 2016) (Class certfied) . . . .”
(Filing No. 76 at 2).

Plaintiff also argues “additional new

authority” from the United States Supreme Court’s opinion Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct.
-3-

1036, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, 2016 WL 1092414 (Mar. 22, 2016) “exists
for [p]laintiff’s position.”

(Filing No. 85 at 1).

However, the

Court finds that plaintiff fails to provide newly discovered
evidence, show a manifest error of law or fact, or point to a
controlling intervening change in the law from the United States
Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit.

The Court is unconvinced of

plaintiff’s broad interpretation of the Supreme Court’s limited
holding in Bouaphakeo.

Plaintiff has failed to meet any of the

requirements outlined by the Federal Rules leaving the Court
devoid of any reason to alter or amend the February 25, 2016,
order.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend

is denied.
DATED this 12th day of April, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-4-