United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
V. S. Granade SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration of Document 37 or to certify Document 37 as a
final matter. (Doc. 38). For reasons that will be explained
below, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his burden of
demonstrating clear error, manifest injustice, or that any
other reason justifies relief. The Court further finds below
that there is just reason at this time for delaying entry of
final judgment dismissing Defendant Southern Intermodal
Xpress. Therefore, Plaintiffs motion will be denied.
37 of Plaintiffs case is an Order by the undersigned judge,
adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and dismissing Plaintiffs claims against Defendant
Southern Intermodal Xpress ("SIX"), but without
prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint
against SIX under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) by May 15,
2017. (Doc. 37). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended
complaint against SIX.
filed this ERISA action, pro se, against SIX and
others seeking death benefits he alleges he is entitled to
after the death of Gwendolyn Morris. SIX is Plaintiffs
employer and is alleged to have deducted wages from
Plaintiffs paycheck for the premiums for the life insurance
policy at issue. The Report and Recommendation found that
Plaintiff had not stated a claim against SIX because it had
not alleged any factual allegations that plausibly suggest
SIX took any action with respect to his claim for benefits
that would be analogous to a breach or "that plausibly
suggest SIX failed to discharge its role under the ERISA plan
in a proper way." (Doc. 28, p. 14). The documents
attached to Plaintiffs complaint indicate that Union Security
Insurance Company, under the brand name Assurant Employee
Benefits, is the entity that denied Plaintiffs initial claim
and determined the appeal of Plaintiffs claim. (Doc. 1, pp.
5-8). The Magistrate Judge found that "nothing in the
complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations or attached
exhibits plausibly suggests that the denial of ERISA benefits
was caused by any impropriety on SIX's part." (Doc.
28, p. 13).
moves for reconsideration alleging generally that the Report
and Recommendation was wrongfully adopted and that the
Magistrate "disrespect[ed] the rules of civil
procedure" and engaged in discriminatory behavior and
"defacto counseling for the Defendants." Plaintiff
complains that he was not afforded the right to amend his
complaint before the complaint was dismissed and that he was
not asked what statute he desired to proceed under. Plaintiff
further asserts that the undersigned judge failed to manage
or oversee the Magistrate Judge and failed to seize the life
insurance payments and life insurance group policy held by
Defendant. Plaintiff also accuses the court of trickery,
manipulation, and "disruptive and mean spirited"
motion to reconsider under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) is available only "when a party presents evidence
of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability
of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or
manifest injustice." Summit Med. Ctr. of Alabama,
Inc. v. Riley, 284 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala.
2003). Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) is permitted for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due 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 other misconduct of 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;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff has not alleged an
intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence,
clerical or inadvertent mistake, fraud by the opposing party,
or that the judgment is void, has been satisfied, or is no
longer equitable. Instead Plaintiffs stated reasons for
reconsideration appear to fall under a claim of clear error
or manifest injustice or 6O(b)'s catchall "any other
reason that justifies relief."
motion to reconsider based upon clear error is appropriate
"when the Court has patently misunderstood a party ...
or has made a mistake, not of reasoning, but of
apprehension." Wendy's Int'l, Inc. v.
Nu-Cape Constr., Inc.,169 F.R.D. 680, 684 (M.D. Fla.
1996). "A motion to reconsider is not a vehicle for
rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected or for
attempting to refute the basis of the Court's earlier
decision." Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City
of Lakeland, Fla.,189 F.R.D. 480 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7,
1999). Nor does a motion for reconsideration provide an
opportunity to simply reargue-or argue for the first time-an
issue the Court has once determined. Arthur v. King,500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). Court opinions
"are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to
revision and reconsideration at a litigant's
pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco
Indus., Inc.,123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. 111. 1988).
Thus, "[t]he burden is upon the movant to establish the
extraordinary circumstances supporting reconsideration."
Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 149