The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul L. Friedman United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for rescission or, in the alternative, for reformation of the voluntary dismissal of her claims against defendant Unum Provident. Upon consideration of the parties' papers, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion.*fn1
On April 4, 2008, plaintiff Khadija Duma filed this action pro se against defendants Unum Provident, Fannie Mae, and three individually named defendants, "asserting a broad panoply of claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ["ERISA"], the First Amendment, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, civil RICO, and the anti-discrimination statutes." Memorandum Order at 1, May 4, 2009 (Robertson, J.). The central focus of plaintiff's action was to obtain long term disability benefits from Unum Provident pursuant to an insurance policy issued by Fannie Mae, plaintiff's former employer, as part of an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1000, et seq. See Memorandum Order at 1, May 4, 2009 (Robertson, J.). Plaintiff, however, also sought "pension payments, reimbursement for medically related expenses after she left the employ of . . . Fannie Mae, the 'full market value of [her] home as appraised in 2005,' damages of $10 million 'for the harm [that defendants] have done to [plaintiff and her] family,' and a written apology from [the] three individual defendants who are or were employed in the Fannie Mae legal department." Id.
On May 4, 2009, Judge James Robertson issued a Memorandum Order dismissing most of plaintiff's claims. See Memorandum Order at 1-4, May 4, 2009 (Robertson, J.). Specifically, Judge Robertson dismissed all of plaintiff's claims except her ERISA claim against Unum Provident and her Title VII claim against Fannie Mae. See id. at 3-4; see also Memorandum at 1, May 29, 2010 (Robertson, J.). Judge Robertson then ordered that an attorney from the Court's Civil Pro Bono Panel be appointed to consult with plaintiff regarding the status of her case and to provide her with legal representation, if appropriate. Memorandum Order at 4, May 4, 2009 (Robertson, J.).
Soon thereafter, on May 21, 2009, attorneys Peter C. Lallas and Jeffrey Pariser of Hogan & Hartson LLP ("Hogan & Hartson") entered appearances on plaintiff's behalf for the limited purpose of mediation and possibly settlement.*fn2 Mr. Lallas and Mr. Pariser then engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for Unum Provident. Opp. at 2; see Mot. at 3-5. As a result, on September 4, 2009, plaintiff and Unum Provident reached a settlement agreement, under which Unum Provident would pay plaintiff $10,000 "in full and final compromise and settlement of all her claims against Unum . . . that were made or which might have been made by" plaintiff. Opp. Ex. C, Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims ("Settlement Agreement and Release") at 1, Sept. 4, 2009. That same day, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for plaintiff and Unum Provident filed a stipulation of dismissal that "dismiss[ed] this action with prejudice as to . . . Unum Provident only." Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal ("Stipulation of Dismissal") at 1, Sept. 4, 2009 (emphasis added). Four days later, on September 8, 2009, plaintiff deposited the check issued by Unum Provident for $10,000. Opp. Ex. D at 1, Sept. 8, 2009; see Mot. at 5.
On May 29, 2010, Judge Robertson dismissed plaintiff's final outstanding claim - the Title VII claim against Fannie Mae - on consideration of Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's written opposition. See Memorandum at 1-2, May 29, 2010 (Robertson, J.); Order at 1, May 29, 2010 (Robertson, J.). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 7, 2010. Then, on the following day, June 8, 2010, plaintiff filed the motion at issue, requesting rescission or, in the alterative, reformation of the voluntary dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Unum Provident.*fn3 Because this motion was filed within twenty-eight days of Judge Robertson's final order, the court of appeals, on its own motion, held plaintiff's appeal in abeyance pending this Court's disposition of plaintiff's motion. See Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at 1, Nov. 15, 2010.
Plaintiff's motion rests on two grounds. First, plaintiff claims that Hogan & Hartson had a conflict of interest in this case that they failed to promptly disclose to her. See Mot. at 1. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Hogan & Hartson did not immediately inform her that Unum Provident's lead counsel, David E. Constine, had a brother, Jonathan A. Constine, who was a partner at Hogan & Hartson at the time that Hogan & Hartson represented her in this case. Mot. at 1; see Opp. at 2. Plaintiff thus alleges that the "[f]ailure by Hogan and Hartson to make that disclosure before [she] accepted them as pro bono counsel affected material facts of the representation Hogan and Hartson provided to [her]." Mot. at 2. Second, plaintiff claims that she was under duress and coercion when she signed the Settlement Agreement and Release and that she never agreed to a voluntary dismissal "with prejudice" of her claims against Unum Provident. Id.
Unum Provident opposes plaintiff's motion. It argues that plaintiff's motion should be denied because the signed Settlement Agreement and Release "provides Unum with a complete defense to any potential claim by [p]laintiff." Opp. at 2. Moreover, Unum Provident argues that there was no conflict of interest and that plaintiff fails to establish duress as a matter of law. Id.
Counsel for plaintiff and Unum Provident filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice on September 4, 2009. Nine months later, on June 8, 2010, plaintiff filed her motion for rescission or, in the alternative, for reformation. A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed "no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). By contrast, a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) must, for certain claims, be filed within one year or, for others, be filed "within a reasonable time." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Unum Provident thus contends that plaintiff's motion - filed nine months after the filing of the Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice - is governed by Rule 60(b). See Opp. at 2. The Court does not agree. As the court of appeals' order suggests, this motion is properly analyzed as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment.
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a "plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). The law is clear that "entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval." In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Except as provided under Rule 41(a)(1), however, "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Stipulation of Dismissal in this case was signed only by plaintiff's counsel and Unum Provident's counsel - not by Fannie Mae - and it purported to "dismiss this action with prejudice as to . . . Unum Provident only." Stipulation of Dismissal at 1.
Although the parties agreed to dismiss the action against one defendant in the case on September 4, 2009, there was no final order in the case until May 29, 2010. While the Settlement Agreement and Release constituted a binding contract when signed on September 4, 2009, the claims and the defendant to which they relate were not effectively dismissed until Judge Robertson implicitly approved the stipulation in his final order. Accordingly, the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal falls under Rule 41(a)(2) and therefore was not a legally effective dismissal of the claims against Unum Provident until Judge Robertson issued his final order on May 29, 2010. It follows that because plaintiff filed her motion on June 8, 2010 - within twenty-eight days of Judge Robertson's final order - plaintiff's motion is a timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); see also Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at 1, Nov. 15, 2010 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)).
A motion to alter or amend a judgment "under Rule 59(e) is discretionary with the court 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.'" MDB Communications, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 531 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 661, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). "Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment are 'not to be used to relitigate matters already argued and disposed of; they are intended to permit the court to correct errors of fact appearing on the face of the record, or errors of law.'" Id. (quoting Independent Petroleum Ass'n of America v. Babbitt, 178 F.R.D. 323, 324 (D.D.C. 1998)). "Such motions are ...