Laschkewitsch v. American National Life Insurance Company
ORDER denying 57 Motion for Relief from Judgment for Oversight, Omissions and Want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; granting 61 Motion to Seal Document. 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
AMERICAN NATIONAL LIFE
John Laschkewitsch ("Laschkewitsch" or ''plaintiff") is a familiar litigant. See, e.g.,
Laschkewitsch v. Legal & Gen. Am.. Inc., 247 F. Supp. 3d 710, 715-16 (E.D.N.C. 2017). On
·August ,5, 2016, the court granted summary judgment to defendant American National Life
lnsuranc~'·bompany ("ANICO") on Laschkewitsch's claims and ANICO's counterclaims, denied
Laschkewitsch's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in ANICO's favor. See
[D.E. 42, 43]. On July 27, 2017, the court awarded ANICO $115,861.41 in attorneys' fees and
$3,345.72 in damages, and entered judgment.
See [D.E. 55, 56].
On August 24, 2017,
Laschkewitsch moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) and
60(b)(4) [D.E. 57]. ANICOrespondedinopposition [D.E. 62], andLaschkewitschreplied [D.E. 65].
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 of the record." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(a). Laschkewitsch's arguments concerning a perceived "mistake arising from
oversight or omission" parrot contentions this court rejected when granting summary judgment for
ANICO. The court has reviewed the motion under the governing standard. See Sartin v. McNair
LawFirmPA, 756F.3d259,264--66 (4thCir. 2014); Rhodesv. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 548 F.App'x
857,859-61 (4thCir. 2013) (percuriam)(unpublished); Kosnoski v. Howley, 33 F.3d376, 379 (4th
Cir. 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). AccordingtoLaschkewitsch, the
judgment entered against him is void because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court
has reviewed the 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.
Finally, to the extent Laschkewitsch seeks relief from the judgment of July 27, 2017, under
Rule 59(e), 1 the motion does not meet the governing legal standard under Rule 59(e). See Mayfield
v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012); Zinkand v.
Bro:M!, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,
403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hutchinson v. Stato!l, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1993). Thus, the
motion is denied.
In sum, the court DENIES Laschkewitsch's motion for relief from judgment [D.E. 57]. The
court GRANTS Laschkewitsch's motion to seal [D.E. 61].
SO ORDERED. This J..L day of October 2017.
See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978).
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?