Reliastar Life Insurance Company v. Laschkewitsch
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 124 Defendant's Motion to Strike Reply at 118 . Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/24/2014. Copy mailed to pro se defendant via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
JOHN B. LASCHKEWITSCH,
This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs reply at DE 118
[DE 124] and defendant's motion for reconsideration [DE 120]. The reply memo to which
defendant takes objection [DE 118] concerned an issue which was ruled on by this Court on
April 13, 2014. [DE 130]. Therefore defendant's motion to strike the reply is now moot and is
accordingly DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant seeks reconsideration under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) of this Court's March 6,
2014 order [DE 100] denying defendant's motion regarding sufficiency of plaintiffs answers
and objections [DE 65]. "Although Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision which allows a court to
grant relief for any reason, case law limits the reasons for which a court may grant relief under
Rule 60(b)(6)." Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir.
1993). "[I]ts context requires that it may be invoked in only 'extraordinary circumstances' when
the reason for relief from judgment does not fall within the list of enumerated reasons given in
Rule 60(b)(1)-(5)." 1 Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2011) (en bane). Here,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides in full: "Grounds for Relieffrom a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
defendant offers no extraordinary circumstances that justify relief from judgment. Defendant
simply maintains that the Court came to the wrong conclusion in analyzing his earlier motion.
Indeed, defendant spend the majority of his supporting brief for this motion going through the
same evidence making exactly the same arguments that he made in his earlier motion. Defendant
has pointed to no reason for relief under Rule 60(b )( 6) much less an extraordinary circumstance.
Accordingly, his motion is DENIED.
This the~ day of April, 2014.
TE ENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
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?