Tu v. U-Haul Co of South Carolina Inc et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 106 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 107 Motion for Extension. Plaintiff shall file a response to the Motion for Taxation of Costs within ten days of the date this Order is issued. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/27/2020.(vdru, )

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Kueilin Lu Tu,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
U-Haul Co. of North Carolina, and
)
Shawn Smith,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 2:18-cv-734-MBS
ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff
ting summary judgment in favor of Defendant U-Haul Co. of

ent of time to reply to the Motion for Taxation
), ECF No. 107. The court has carefully reviewed the relevant
filings and the applicable law and, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies the Motion for
Reconsideration and grants the Motion for Extension.
BACKGROUND
The factual background and procedural history of this case is thoroughly set forth in the
order issued by this court on August 28, 2020, ECF No
familiarity therewith.

Plaintiff asserted two causes of action in the operative pleading: 1)
ng Supervision and Training of

moved for summary judgment on the bases that 1) Plaintiff was solely at fault in the accident that
led to this lawsuit; 2) UHNC is the victim of a crime and cannot be liable for the actions of its codefendant, Shawn Smith; and 3) there is no legal duty and no evidence to support the claim that

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

Page 2 of 6

UHNC negligently hired, supervised, and trained Smith. ECF No. 79. With respect
simple negligence claim, the court in its Order found that to the extent Smith was negligent, he
was not employed by UHNC at the time of the accident and therefore UHNC could not be held
finding no duty attributable to UHNC, the court
on that Plaintiff was solely at fault for the accident. The court
also found that to the extent Smith was a UHNC employee at the time of the accident, the evidence
demonstrated he was not acting within the scope of his employment when he parked the subject
U-Haul truck on the side of I-26. With respect to the claim for negligent hiring, training, and
supervision, the court found that Plaintiff had not carried her burden of proof that UHNC had acted
negligently in hiring Smith or that UHNC had actual or constructive notice of any prior act of
incompetency or negligence attributable to Smith.1
On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Reconsideration contending that she
demonstrated in her response to the motion for summary

terial facts that

was negligent in supervising and negligent in failing to properly train its
at 2. UHNC filed a response in opposition asserting that the Motion for Reconsideration fails to
address any of the factors necessary to alter or amend a judgment and fails to present a legal or
factual basis for modifying the Order. ECF No. 109. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiff moves for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6). Under
Rule 59(e), a party may move to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the entry of the

1

The court applied South Carolina law to the claim of negligence and North Carolina law to the
claim of negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
2

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

Page 3 of 6

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Fourth Circuit has advised that a Rule 59(e) motion is
discretionary and should be grante

tervening change in controlling

law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998) (citing EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d 110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997)). See Robinson
v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010).
Under Rule 60(b), on motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party from a final
take, inadvertence, surprise, or
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to

(6). In addition, 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. Dowell v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th
Cir. 1993). The moving party must satisfy the threshold inquiry first and then demonstrate relief
under one of the several grounds for relief in Rule 60. Union Ins. Co. v. Soleil Group, Inc., 585 F.
Supp. 2d 783, 785 (D.S.C. 2008) (quoting Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896
(4th Cir. 1987)).
A motion seeking reconsideration of an order is not the proper vehicle for rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
entry of judgment. Rather, such a motion serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. As such,

3

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

reconsideration of a judgment af

Page 4 of 6

ary remedy that should be used

Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts she alleged

s actions at the time of the

Smith, and contends that the Order addresses only the claim for respondeat superior and for
negligent hiring and omits discussi

ligence in supervision and/or

training. ECF No. 106 at 4. Plaint

ligent supervision and negligent

training are separate claims from one another and separate claims from the negligent hiring
Id.
Defendant responds that the court should review the Motion for Reconsideration under
Rule 59(e) only because the Motion mentions Rule 60(b)(6) just once and because the Motion
was filed within 28 days of the judgment. ECF No. 109 at 2 (citing Robinson v. Wix Filtration
Corp. LLC

squarely held, however, that a motion

filed under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) should be analyzed only under Rule 59(e) if it was
filed no later than 10 days after entry of the adverse judgment and seeks to correct that
2

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is entitled to no relief under Rule

59(e) because she fails to mention let alone satisfy any of the factors that must be met before the
court may alter or amend a judgment.
The court agrees that review under Rule 59(e) alone is appropriate and further agrees
with Defendant that the Motion for Reconsideration fails to meet the standard set forth in the

2

The 2009 amendment to Rule 59(e) extended the time for moving to alter or amend a judgment
from 10 days to 28 days.
4

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

Page 5 of 6

Rule.3 Plaintiff points to no intervening change in controlling law and presents no new evidence.
She asserts the court erred in its analysis of her second cause of action, but for support she raises
only arguments she already presented in response to the motion for summary judgment and
arguments that she could have raised in opposition to summary judgment but chose not to. 4 She
Nor has she demonstrated that
the court misapprehended the facts or arguments presented. Accordingly, she has not shown she
is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).
In the Motion for Extension, Plaintiff asks the court to stay her deadline for responding to
the Motion for Taxation of Costs until such time as the court rules on the Motion for
Reconsideration and to grant an extension of the deadline to respond to ten days following an
order on said motion. ECF No. 107. The Motion for Extension is granted; Plaintiff shall file a
response to the Motion for Taxation of Costs within ten days of the date this Order is issued.
For the foregoing reasons, Plai

ation, ECF No. 106, is denied

ion, ECF No. 107, is granted.

3

The Motion for Reconsideration would fare no better under a Rule 60(b)(6) review. The
subsection Plaintiff moves under is considered a catchall provision that allows the court to grant
relief from a judgment or order
60(b)(6). For the very reasons Plaintiff does not satisfy Rule 59(e), she would not satisfy Rule
60(b)(6).
4
For instance, Defendant moved for summary judgme
on notice that the motion was fully dispositive
of the operative complaint. Defendant argue
ty and no evidence to
support the claim for negligent hiring, s
id. at 16,
which characterization of the second cause of action merely restated how Plaintiff pleaded the
claim in the operative complaint. To the extent Plaintiff took issue with that characterization of
elements of the claim and proof necessary to
support the claim, she should have argued the point in her response to the motion.
5

2:18-cv-00734-MBS

Date Filed 10/29/20

Entry Number 110

Page 6 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
October 27, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina

6