MacGregor et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Filing 74

ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 4/30/2012.(jsch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DAVID MACGREGOR, ET AL.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANCE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

Civil No. 2:10-CV-03088

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this court’s
July 22, 2011 Order, or in the alternative, motion to allow notice to a more limited
class. For the reasons set forth below, this court denies plaintiffs’ motions, but
permits plaintiffs to re-file their motion to notify a limited class by May 15, 2012.
Because the motion to reconsider was filed more than 28 days from the date of
this court’s decision, it is not proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
must be considered under Rule 60(b). In order to obtain relief under Rule 60(b), “the
moving party must make a threshold showing that (1) its motion was timely made; (2)
it had a meritorious defense; (3) no unfair prejudice to the opposing party would
result; and (4) exceptional circumstances warranted relief from the judgment.”
Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs have failed to show that their motion was timely or that exceptional
circumstances warrant relief from judgment; therefore, the threshold requirements of
Rule 60(b) have not been satisfied. Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n Stock Car Auto Racing,
Inc., No. 10-2437, ---F.3d ----, 2012 WL 990520 (4th Cir. Mar. 26, 2012) (“Rule 60

1

provides for an extraordinary remedy that should not be awarded except under
exceptional circumstances.”).
Furthermore, plaintiffs did not explain which prong of Rule 60(b) justified
vacating this court’s earlier order, but only claim that this court committed “clear
legal error,” which justifies reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Robinson, 599 F.3d at
420. Reviewing their argument under Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6), the court finds
plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority contrary to
this court’s order which is binding on this court. Rather, plaintiffs’ motion is
“nothing more than a request that [this] court change its mind, [which] . . . is not
authorized by Rule 60(b).” United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir.
1982). “The limits on 60(b) review are designed to protect the finality of judgments.”
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). Because plaintiffs have failed
to meet the threshold and substantive requirements of Rule 60(b), this court denies
plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs have requested notification of a more limited class; however, the
boundaries of that class changed from the briefing to the hearing. Plaintiffs’ motion
to renew is denied with leave to renew their motion by May 15, 2012, to explain the
parameters of and justifications for the more limited class.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider,
and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to renew, with leave to re-file by May 15, 2012.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

_____________________________________
DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 30, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

3