Shields v. Ultimate Vacation Group LLC d/b/a Royal Bahamas Cruise Line
ORDER denying 117 Motion to reconsider case dismissal .(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dwilkerson, 3) Modified on 6/9/2017 (dwilkerson, 3).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ULTIMATE VACATION GROUP LLC
D/B/A ROYAL BAHAMAS CRUISE
LINE, et al,
June 09, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-285
On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff Joe Shields, represented by counsel, filed a
“Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Dkt. 114. The next day, he filed an “Agreed
Proposed Order Granting Dismissal with Prejudice.” Dkt. 115. This Court entered an
order dismissing the case with prejudice on November 23, 2015. Dkt. 116.
On May 5, 2017, Shields, this time appearing pro se, filed a letter that this Court
construes as a motion to reopen the case and reconsider the dismissal. Dkt. 117.
Defendants have duly responded to that motion. Dkt. 117.
Shield’s request to vacate the dismissal and reopen his case may be liberally
construed as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Smith v.
Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, Institutional Div., 79 Fed. App’x. 61, 62 (5th Cir. 2003).
Rule 60(b) provides that upon such a motion, a court may relieve a party from a final
judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered earlier; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that
applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that
justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(b)(1)-(6).
Here, Shields alleges fraud by Defendants and their counsel, and newly discovered
evidence. However, his motion is untimely. Rule 60(c)(1) requires such motions to be
brought within one year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding. FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(c)(1); Smith v. Kukua, 487 Fed. App’x. 145, 146
(5th Cir. 2012).
After due consideration, the Court finds that Shield’s motion, Dkt. 117, should be
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 9th day of June, 2017.
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge
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?