Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lindell v. Landis Construction Co.

August 4, 2010

NATHAN LINDELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LANDIS CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul L. Friedman United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 2010 decision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, defendants' motion for attorneys' fees, and plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments in their briefs, its May 28, 2010 decision, and the entire record in this case. It will deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, deny defendants' motion for attorneys' fees, and grant plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

A. Reconsideration

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration under both Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The resolution of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is a matter of the Court's discretion and "need not be granted unless the [Court] finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice."

Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A] Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled, nor is it a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have been advanced earlier." Fresh Kist Produce, LLC v. Choi Corp., 251 F. Supp. 2d 138, 140 (D.D.C. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "While the [C]court has considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion, the reconsideration and amendment of a previous order is an extraordinary measure." Fresh Kist Produce, 251 F. Supp. 2d. at 140 (citing Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam)).

Rule 60(b) provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) [for] any other reason that justifies relief.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). When a claim for relief does not fall under any of the first five reasons, Rule 60(b)(6) "enables [courts] to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice." Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988) (quoting Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614 (1949)). Such action is appropriate, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.