Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company
ORDER denying 53 Motion for Relief from Judgement for Oversight, Omissions, and Want of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; granting 56 Motion to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/11/2017. Sent to John Laschkewitsch at 1933 Ashridge Drive Fayetteville, NC 28304 via US Mail. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT. COURT
.FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
John Laschkewitsch ("Laschkewitsch" or "plaintiff') is a familiar litigant.
Laschk:ewitsch v. Legal & Gen. Am.. Inc., 247 F. Supp. 3d 710, 715-16 (E.D.N.C. 2017). On
September 21, 2016, the court denied as baseless Laschkewitsch's motion to modify or correct
Transamerica Life Insurance Company's ("Transamerica" or "defendant") arbitration award of
$540,723.76, denied his motion to vacate the arbitration award and to dismiss Transamerica's
petition for confirmation, and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award. See [D .E. 44, 45].
On August 14, 2017, Laschkewitsch moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b)(4) [D.E. 53]. Transamerica responded in opposition [D.E. 60], and.
Laschkewitsch replied [D.E. 61]. As explained below, the court denies Laschkewitsch's motion.
Under Rule 60(a), "[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from
oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part ofthe record." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(a). Laschkewitsch's arguments concerning a perceived "mistake arising from
oversight or omission" parrot contentions that this court repeatedly has rejected as baseless. The
court has considered the motion under the governing standard. See Sartin v. McNair Law Firm PA,
756 F.3d 259,264-66 (4th Cir. 2014); Rhodes v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 548 F. App'x 857, 859--61
(4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished); Kosnoski v. Howley, 33 F.3d 376,379 (4thCir. 1994).
The motion lacks merit and is denied.
Rule 60(b)(4) authorizes the court to ''relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment" when ''the judgment is void." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). According to Laschk:ewitsc~ the
judgment entered against him is void because both the arbitratoi and this court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction. Laschk:ewitsch repeatedly has pressed this argument in this case, and the court
repeatedly has rejected it. The argument has not improved with age. The court has reviewed
Laschk:ewitsch's motion under the governing legal standard. See Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. AMH
Roman Two NC. LLC, 859 F.3d 295, 302 n.3 (4th Cir. 2017); Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410,
412-13 (4th Cir. 2005); Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.. Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004);
Schwartz v. United States, 976 F .2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1992). The motion lacks merit and is denied.
In sum, the court DENIES Laschk:ewitsch's motion for relief from judgment [D.E. 53]. The
court GRANTS Laschk:ewitsch's motion to seal [D.E. 56].
SO ORDERED. This __u_ day of October 2017.
Chief United States District Judge
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?