Mitchell v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
Filing
104
OPINION AND ORDER denying 101 Motion for Reconsideration regarding 98 Order on Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/21/2013.(gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENWOOD DIVISION
Cathy A. Mitchell,
Plaintiff,
v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 8:12–548-TMC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Cathy Mitchell’s (“Mitchell’s”) Motion for
Reconsideration, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (ECF No. 101). Defendant Conseco Life
Insurance Company (“Conseco”) has filed a response opposing the motion (ECF No. 102), and
Mitchell has filed a reply (ECF No. 103). For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
Motions to alter or amend final judgments under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be granted if
necessary “(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.”
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
The power to grant or deny a motion under Rule 59(e) is discretionary, and “[i]n general
reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A motion to reconsider is not a
vehicle for rearguing the law or petitioning a court to change its mind. See Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n. 5 (2008) (explaining that a Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to
relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior
to the entry of judgment”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Mitchell contends that in the order denying class certification (ECF No. 98), the court
“misapprehended factors relevant to the proposed class definition and the number of putative
class members extrapolated from Plaintiff’s sampling of claims files.” Specifically, Mitchell
argues that the court misconstrued the applicable law by holding that “without some evidence
that the claims were denied based upon revenue codes 390 through 399, these claimants would
not be proper class members.” (ECF No. 101 at 1-2). In response, Conseco argues Mitchell’s
arguments are nonsensical because without a requirement that the denial was based upon the
revenue codes, there is no common question of law or fact. (ECF No. 102 at 1-2).
Mitchell has cited no intervening changes in the law applicable to this case or new
evidence that was previously unavailable. Further, the court has reviewed its prior order and
determined that it contains no clear errors of law. Accordingly, Plaintiff Mitchell’s Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 101) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 21, 2013
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?