Hudson v. State Farm Insurance Company et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 45 Motion to Strike Order and Scandalous Defendant's Claims and Motion for a Direct Verdict; denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 49 Motion to Stay. The clerk is DIRECTED to notify the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the disposition of these motions. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/3/2019. (A copy of this Order was sent via US mail to Wanda Hudson, Post Office Box 473, Morrisville, NC 27560.) (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:17-CV-516-FL

WANDA HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANY; NATIONWIDE
INSURANCE COMPANY;
ENTERPRISE RENTAL CAR;
WAKEMED HOSPITALS OF CARY,
NC; AND ROCK QUARRY ROAD
FAMILY MEDICINE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to strike the court’s court’s order and
motion for a directed verdict (DE 45). The court construes these motions as a motion to amend or
alter judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Also before the court is defendant State Farm Insurance
Company’s (“State Farm”) motion for reconsideration and motion for stay regarding its order on
defendant’s motion to dismiss and order on motion for miscellaneous relief (DE 49). The court
addresses each motion in turn.
COURT’S DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend or alter judgment
Plaintiff makes a variety of arguments challenging the court’s order dated July 9, 2018

dismissing the case.

“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The court may grant such a motion only “(1) to accommodate
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock
Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012). A Rule 59(e) motion “is an extraordinary
remedy that should be applied sparingly.” Id.
Plaintiff’s does not set forth a basis for amending or altering the judgment in this case. Mere
disagreement with the court’s decision is insufficient to amend or alter the court’s judgment. For
the reasons stated in its previous orders, plaintiff’s legal assertions are without merit. Having failed
to show an intervening change in controlling law or a clear error of law, the court denies plaintiff’s
motion.
B.

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Stay
Defendant State Farm asks the court to reconsider its motion to dismiss, arguing that it did

raise the issue of plaintiff’s state law claims in its motion to dismiss, and therefore such claims
should be adjudicated in federal court.
While the court misstated that defendant State Farm did not raise issues of plaintiff’s state
law claims in its order dated July 9, 2018, those statements are dicta and do not change the court’s
holding in its order. Defendant State Farm’s claims for which it seeks reconsideration are all state
law causes of action: 1) negligence, 2) breach of contract, and 3) bad faith denial of insurance
coverage. As the court noted in its order, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those
state law claims, remanding them to state court for further proceedings on the ground that removal
of state law claims was premised upon the existence of federal claims, which are now dismissed.

2

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
Having articulated its legal basis for declining to address defendant State Farm’s motion to dismiss,
the court denies defendant State Farm’s motion for reconsideration as well.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons noted, plaintiff’s motion to strike the court’s court’s order and motion for a
directed verdict (DE 45) is DENIED. Defendant State Farm Insurance Company’s motion for
reconsideration and motion for stay (DE 49) is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to notify the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of the disposition of these motions.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of January, 2019.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3