-CCC BAYSHORE FORD TRUCK, et al v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Filing 603

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 12/13/13. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

I3AYSHORE FORD TRUCK SALES, NC.,
al

Ct

Civil Action No. 99-74 1 (JLL)

Plaintiffs,

OPINION

V.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Defendant.
LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiffs’ motions to alter
judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(f) or, in the alternative, for relief
from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The Court has considered the
submissions made
in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions and decides this
matter without oral
argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiffs’ motions are denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
As the Court writes exclusively for the parties, only those facts germane to Plainti
ffs’

pending motions are set forth herein.
On December 8, 2005, this Court granted summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ breach
of
contract claim in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court subsequently held a trial as to eleven
bellwether
Plaintiffs’ entitlement to damages between May 29 and June 26, 2012. The jury
returned a
verdict awarding damages to each of the eleven bellwether Plaintiffs on
June 26, 2012.
I

On September 25, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter
of law which
this Court denied on November 21, 2012.
Defendant filed a timely appeal on November 29, 2012. On August 26,
2013, the Third
Circuit reversed this Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plainti
ffs, with instructions
to enter judgment on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim in Defendant’s favor.
On September 9,
2013, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they filed a Third Circuit petitio
n for a panel rehearing
and for a rehearing en banc. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Proced
ure 41 (d)( 1), the Third
Circuit’s mandate to this Court was stayed “until disposition of [Plaintiffs’]
petition” for a panel
rehearing and for a rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs notified the Court that
the Third Circuit rejected
their petition in its entirety on September 25, 2013. Having seen no reason
for further delay in
satisfying the Third Circuit’s mandate, this Court entered judgment on
Plaintiff’s breach of
contract claim in Defendant’s favor on September 27, 2013.
11.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A.

Motion to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e)

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter judgment is “a device to relitigate the
original issue decided

by the district court, and [it is] used to allege legal error.” United States
v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d
282, 288 (3d Cir. 2003). “To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movin
g party must show one of
the following: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court issued its order;
or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Erwin v.
Wailer Capital Partners, LLC,
No. 10-3283, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38142, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar.
20, 2012) (citing Max’s Seafood
(‘afe

V.

Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
B.

Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60
2

In relevant part, Rule 60 states that “[o]n motion and just terms, the
court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

.

.

.

(4) the judgment is void;

or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. The Third Circuit has
“cautioned that relief from a
judgment under Rule 60 should be granted only in exceptional
circumstances.” Boughner v.
Sec

of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 572 F.2d 976, 977 (1978). Furthe
rmore, “[t]he party seeking

relief has the burden of showing that absent such relief, an ‘extrem
e’ and ‘unexpected’ hardship
will result. Id. at 978.
III.

DISCUSSION

The crux of Plaintiffs’ argument as to why they are entitled to an alterati
on of judgment
or relief from judgment is: (I)the Third Circuit’s mandate applies
only to eleven bellwether
Plaintiffs, and cannot apply to the remaining sixty-three Plaintiffs
as the Third Circuit lacked
appellate jurisdiction over them, and (2) the Third Circuit commi
tted errors of fact and law in
reaching its decision. Neither of these arguments have merit.
The mandate rule “binds every court to honor rulings in the
case by superior courts.”
Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 14 F.3d 848, 856 (3d Cir. 1994).
Under the mandate rule, “a trial

court must comply strictly with the mandate directed to it by the
reviewing court.” Ratay v.
Lincoln Vat’l Li/h fns. Co., 405 F.2d 286, 288 (3d Cir. 1968).
The U.S. Supreme court has
“consistently held that an inferior court has no power or author
ity to deviate from the mandate
issued by an appellate court.” Casey. 14 F.3d at 856 (quotin
g Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334
U.S. 304, 306 (1948)). The reason for the mandate rule is to
avoid “anarchy... within the
federal judicial system.” See Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370,
375 (1982). In complying with the
mandate of a reviewing court, “[a] trial court must implement
both the letter and spirit of the
3

mandate, taking into account the appellate court’s opinion and the
circumstances it embraces.”

Blasband v. Rn/es, 979 F.2d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 1992).
In this case, the ‘Third Circuit specifically held that “[Defendant]
did not breach the Sales
and Service Agreement,” and directed this Court to enter judgment in
Defendant’s favor. (Third
Circuit Op. at 7. 9.) As the Third Circuit plainly held that Defendant
did not breach the Sales
and Service agreement. it would be an exercise in futility and a waste
ofjudicial resources to
hold any further trials as to the remaining sixty-three Plaintiffs’ entitle
ment to damages for
Defendant’s breach of that agreement. Moreover, this Court is not empow
ered to remedy any
error the Third Circuit may have committed in reaching its decision. Thus,
there is no basis for
this Court to alter its judgment complying with the Third Circuit’s mandate,
or to grant any
Plaintiff relief from judgment.
IV

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions to alter judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(f) or, in the alternative, for relief from judgment pursua
nt to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60, are denied. An appropriate Order follows.

Dated:

/

of December, 2013.

LINARES
DISTRICT JUDGE

4