Hart v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

Filing 230

ORDER DENYING 219 Motion to Reconsider Judgment. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/12/2013. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
NO. 2:08-CV-47-BO
GWEN HART, eta/.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1 or in the alternative to reconsider
the Court's September 3, 2013, order.
DISCUSSION
The Court dispenses with a recitation of the factual background of this case, and
incorporates by reference the facts as discussed in its previous orders. The relevant procedural
history is as follows. On September 3, 2013, the Court granted defendant's motion for summary
judgment in light of persuasive authority from the North Carolina court of appeals, decertified
the class, and closed the case. Plaintiffs seek relief from that order under Rule 60(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may relieve a party from a final
judgment for any reason, other than those provided in sections one through five, that justifies
relief. Plaintiffs further ask the court to reconsider its order, citing no authority in the rules for
such reconsideration. Plaintiffs ask that the class be recertified, that class members whose claims

1

Though plaintiffs' motion refers to Rule 60(d), the arguments presented in support of
their motion make clear they seek relief under Rule 60(b). Further, the Court would find no basis
under Rule 60(d) upon which it could grant relief to plaintiffs.

would fall within the applicable statute of repose be substituted as plaintiffs, and that this case be
permitted to proceed. Several days after filing the instant motion, plaintiffs noticed a direct
appeal. Because the Court has determined that plaintiffs' motion is meritless, it denies the
motion forthwith. Fabian v. Storage Technology Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999).
Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is allowed only under truly extraordinary circumstances.
Lijeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); see also Aikens v.
Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2011) (en bane). Moreover, a Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be

based on just terms, such that "the party filing the motion [must] have a meritorious claim or
defense and [] the opposing party not be unfairly prejudiced by having the judgment set aside."
Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501. "If the reason asserted for the Rule 60(b)(6) motion could have been

addressed on appeal from the judgment," it will be determined to be an "inappropriate substitute
for an appeal." !d.
Plaintiffs have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would provide a basis
for this Court to reconsider or amend its final order in this matter. Extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief from judgment under 60(b)(6) have been found where parties have not been
provided notice of entry of final judgment, Smith v. Jackson Tool & Die, Inc., 426 F.2d 5 (5th
Cir. 1970), or where a lawyer who did not represent a defendant filed an answer on that
defendant's behalf. Nat'! Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d. 262 (4th Cir. 1993). Though
plaintiffs contend that the Court's decertification of the class was error and an abuse of its
discretion, they have failed to demonstrate that relief under Rule 60((b)(6) is warranted or why
the issue of decertification is not more appropriately considered on appeal. Indeed,
the "most common 'other reason' for which courts have granted relief is when the losing party
2

fails to receive notice ofthe entry of judgment in time to file an appeal." 11 Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 2864 (3d ed.). Here, plaintiffs have

received notice of the entry of judgment and have in fact noticed an appeal. Thus, the Court
concludes that their Rule 60(b)(6) motion is an inappropriate substitute and that their claims are
better raised on appeal.
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to reconsider its September 3, 2013, order. Courts have
determined that reconsideration may be appropriate under limited circumstances to correct
manifest errors of law or to consider newly discovered evidence. Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank
& Trust Co, 215 F.R.D. 507, 509 (W.D.N.C. 2003); Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,

909 (3rd Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs have failed to identify a manifest error of law or any newly
discovered evidence that would change the Court's ruling. At bottom, plaintiffs now ask the
Court "to rethink what the Court ha[s] already thought through- rightly or wrongly," which is
an improper basis for a motion to reconsider, Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,
99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983), especially in light of plaintiffs' pending appeal.
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief
under Rule 60(b)(6), nor have they identified any manifest error of law or any newly discovered
evidence. Their motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) or in the alternative to reconsider [DE 219] is
therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this~ day ofNovember, 2013.

RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J

3