ORDER

BETH BLOOM, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's ("Plaintiff") Renewed Motion to Re-open Case, Alternative Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Re-open Case, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, ECF No. [78], ("Motion"), filed on August 9, 2019. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the opposing and supporting submissions, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Familiarity with the background of this case is assumed. On February 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Gilda Rizzi ("Rizzi"). ECF No. [30]. Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff's request that it be discharged from all further liability as to Rizzi for any and all claims for the Basic Life Insurance ("BLI") benefits resulting from Roy Prewitt's ("Decedent") death. However, the Court denied the Motion to the extent that it requested the discharge of General Electric and the Plan from any further liability as to Rizzi based upon the failure to allege irreparable harm. See ECF No. [30]. On Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, on April 24, 2019, the Court amended the Default Judgment to reflect that the GE Basic Life Insurance Plan ("Plan") was discharged from all further liability as to Rizzi for any and all claims for the BLI benefits resulting from Decedent's death. See ECF No. [56]. On June 26, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Nancy Prewitt's ("Prewitt") Motion for Default Judgment on her cross-claim against Rizzi. ECF No. [65]. That same day, the Court entered a Default Final Judgment in favor of Prewitt and against Rizzi and directed the Clerk to close the case. ECF No. [66] ("Default Final Judgment").

Plaintiff previously filed a motion to re-open this case for similar reasons as those set forth in the instant Motion, ECF No. [67], which the Court denied on procedural grounds, ECF No. [76]. Plaintiff's instant Motion renews its request that the Court re-open this case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 because the Default Final Judgment closed the case but did not resolve the remaining claim and counterclaim between Plaintiff and Prewitt. ECF No. [78]. Prewitt counters that Plaintiff has not cited any statutory basis for re-opening this case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, nor has it provided any basis for equitable relief. ECF No. [82].

As an initial matter, Rule 59 is inapplicable here because the instant Motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after this Court entered the Default Final Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ("A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." (emphasis added)). As such, the Court only examines the Motion's merits pursuant to Rule 60.

Rule 60(a) allows the Court to correct "a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Defendant accordingly requests that this Court re-open the case to correct the mistaken direction in the Default Final Judgment instructing the Clerk of Court to close the case, when Plaintiff's claim against Prewitt and Prewitt's corresponding counterclaim remained unresolved. ECF No. [78] at 3. The Court agrees that the Default Final Judgment erroneously ordered that the case be closed, despite the existence of live, unresolved claims and counterclaims between Plaintiff and Prewitt. See, e.g., ECF No. [21] at 3-10.1 As such, Plaintiff's request to re-open this case pursuant to Rule 60(a) is granted, and the case will be re-opened to allow the parties to continue to litigate their remaining claims against one another.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.