Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On August 7, 2013, this court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. (Docs. 29, 30). On September 9, 2013, 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion asking for Reconsideration on case Dismissal (Doc. 33) (the "Motion") relating to the court's summary judgment ruling that was adverse to her. On September 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 34) (the "Second Motion"), wh
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. On August 7, 2013, this court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. (Docs. 29, 30). On September 9, 2013, 1 Plaintiff filed a Motion asking for Reconsideration on case Dismissal (Doc. 33) (the "Motion") relating to the court's summary judgment ruling that was adverse to her. On September 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 34) (the "Second Motion"), whi..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
On August 7, 2013, this court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. (Docs. 29, 30). On September 9, 2013,1 Plaintiff filed a Motion asking for Reconsideration on case Dismissal (Doc. 33) (the "Motion") relating to the court's summary judgment ruling that was adverse to her. On September 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 34) (the "Second Motion"), which similarly disputes the court's summary judgment decision.
Because the Motion and Second Motion generally seek to modify this court's final judgment entered on August 7, 2013, both are brought procedurally pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 See Smith v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 358 Fed. App'x 60, 64 (11th Cir. 2009) ("Regardless of how the parties label the motion, the district court will treat a post-judgment motion as having been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, depending on the type of relief sought." (citing Burnam v. Amoco Container Co., 738 F.2d 1230, 1231 (11th Cir. 1984))).
The standards governing Rule 59(e) motions are straightforward:
[The Eleventh Circuit] review[s] the denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion. Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006). "The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). "[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be used] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
Additionally, under Rule 59(e), "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). This means that for Plaintiff's Motion and Second Motion to be timely presented, they had to be filed with the court no later than September 4, 2013, which they were not. Even if the court treats Plaintiff's Reason for Submitting Evidence Late (Doc. 31) and supporting Brief in Support of Prima Facie Case (Doc. 32) that were filed on September 6, 2013, as an earlier Rule 59(e) motion, still Plaintiff does not meet the applicable filing deadline of September 4, 2013.
Further, while Plaintiff contends in Doc. 31 that she was unaware of the scheduling deadlines applicable to Defendant's summary judgment motion (id. at 1 ("[T]he Plaintiff hasn't been informed throughout this lawsuit that there is actually a time frame in which she has to respond to certain documents.")), she neglects to acknowledge that on March 13, 2012, this court entered and the clerk mailed to her the undersigned's uniform initial order (Doc. 4), which, in appendix II, included the court's temporal and other requirements applicable to movants and non-movants on summary judgment. (Id. at 13-20).
Finally, even when considering the substance of Plaintiff's late Motion, Second Motion, and related contentions, this court, in its discretion, is unpersuaded to alter its summary judgment decision in any manner. More specifically, neither Plaintiff's Motion nor her Second Motion offers newly discovered evidence, demonstrates manifest error of law or fact on the part of the court, or otherwise provides a compelling basis for amending the prior ruling. Accordingly, and for all these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion and Second Motion are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
