Ross v. Author Solutions, et al.

Filing 18

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Ross's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15), is denied. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 10/5/2015. (S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Emmie Ross,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00105
Plaintiff

v.

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

Author Solutions, et al.,
Defendants
I.

INTRODUCTION

On August 5, 2015, I dismissed the claims of Plaintiff Emmie Ross against Defendants
Author Solutions, Buddy Dow, and Eugene Hopkins1 without prejudice, and granted the
Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. No. 13). Ross has filed a motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. No. 15). Ross’s motion is denied.
II.

STANDARD

A party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the entry of the
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to vacate and reconsider, or to reverse a prior holding,
may be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60,
62 (6th Cir. 1979). A motion to alter or amend a judgment may be granted if there is (1) a clear
error of law, (2) newly-discovered evidence, (3) an intervening change in controlling law, or (4) to
prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).

1 As I noted in my opinion granting the Defendants’ motion, the Defendants assert Ross incorrectly named two
defendants, and that the true names of the Defendants are AuthorHouse LLC, George Dow, and Eugene Hopkins.

A district court may relieve a party from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) for any of six
enumerated reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of
an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed
or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment.
Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 395 (6th Cir. 1993).
III.

ANALYSIS

Ross argues I ruled incorrectly in granting the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration
because the Defendants did not file an answer or their notice of removal before the deadline to do
so expired, and because she never agreed to arbitration. (Doc. No. 15 at 6; Doc. No. 17). As I
previously explained, the Defendants filed their notice of removal before the deadlines imposed by
the Federal and Ohio Civil Rules, and the contract Ross signed called for any disputes between the
parties to be submitted to arbitration. (Doc. No. 13 at 2-3). Ross fails to identify a clear error of
law, newly-discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, or manifest injustice that
would justify altering or amending my prior opinion and order. GenCorp, 178 F.3d at 834.
Ross also argues the Defendants submitted fraudulent documents in support of their
motion. This argument fails because (1) she raised it in opposition to the Defendants’ motion to
compel arbitration and may not re-litigate it through a motion for reconsideration and (2) it has no
factual basis, as the allegedly-fraudulent alterations are the addition of an exhibit notation and the
CM/ECF electronic docketing information. Moreover, a Rule 60(b) motion that merely disagrees
with a court’s previous conclusion and raises essentially the same arguments presented in response
to the dispositive motion fails to satisfy the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances required by
Rule 60(b)(6). Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa, 357 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir. 2004).

2

Her remaining arguments are baseless ad hominem attacks that impugn the integrity of the
Court and defense counsel, and which do not provide a basis for granting her motion under either
Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Ross’s motion for reconsideration, (Doc. No. 15), is denied.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

3