Florida Carpenters Regional Council Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation et al

Filing 59

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Lead Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court's August 9, 2013 Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead is DENIED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/16/13. (LC,S) re 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Florida Carpenters Regional Council
Pension Plan, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Eaton Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 12 CV 2001

JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Lead Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court’s August 9, 2013
Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead (Doc. 49).
This is a securities fraud case. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s Order based on
newly discovered evidence. The Court will not recite the facts of this case. According to
1

plaintiff, the recent lawsuit filed by former Eaton attorney O’Flaherty constitutes “newly
discovered” evidence sufficient to warrant the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff
argues that allegations contained in the O’Flaherty lawsuit demonstrate that Eaton
intentionally and deliberately concealed documents from the Frisby court in 2008. Plaintiff
claims that Eaton had an improper motive for terminating O’Flaherty and that these new
allegations bear on scienter.
The Court rejects plaintiff’s argument and finds that reconsideration is not warranted.
As defendants point out, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that
plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter and causation. The firing of O’Flaherty has no
bearing on the Court’s determination regarding scienter. And, although plaintiff purports to
point to “new” allegations in the proposed amended complaint that relate to causation,
plaintiff makes no argument that these allegations amount to “newly discovered evidence.1”
As such, even if the Court were to consider the lawsuit filed by O’Flaherty to be “newly
discovered evidence,” relief is not warranted as there is no “newly discovered evidence”
related to causation.
Regardless, however, the Court finds that the additional allegations regarding the
lawsuit filed by O’Flaherty are insufficient to warrant reconsideration. The Court previously
held that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that Eaton engaged in the discovery abuses with

1

The Court notes that this is not a motion for leave to amend the
complaint. Rather, this case was dismissed by the Court in its
entirety. Thus, plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of either
Rule 59 or 60 before relief will be granted. As set forth herein,
plaintiff fails in this regard. Regardless, even if the Court were to
apply the more generous standard contained in Rule 15(a), the
Court finds that an amendment would be futile.
2

the intent to defraud and deceive Eaton’s shareholders. Nothing in the proposed complaint
changes this conclusion. Accordingly, an amendment would be futile.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court’s August 9, 2013 Order
Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 10/16/13

3