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.

Morris v. Southern Intermodal Xpress

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

January 31, 2018

DAVID MORRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN INTERMODAL XPRESS, ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

          ORDER

          CALLIE V. S. GRANADE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on “David Morris Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Document Number Three (3) and Relief from Judgments Pronounced and other wise Un-Pronounced”. (Doc. 49). After review, this Court construes Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 49) as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to either Federal Rule 59(e) or 60(b). For the reasons set forth herein below, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed this ERISA action, pro se, against Southern Intermodal Xpress (“SIX”), Assurant Employee Benefits (“Assurant”), and Union Security Insurance Company (“Union”) on December 21, 2016, seeking death benefits after the death of Gwendolyn Morris. On April 28, 2017, this Court entered an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge which recommended dismissal of SIX pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), but without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file an amended complaint that properly alleged a claim by not later than May 15, 2017. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as ordered. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Document Number 37; Or Certify the Document Number 37 Resolution as a Final Matter Ripe for Appellate Review” (Doc. 38). On May 19, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 39). On July 13, 2017, the remaining Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Record and brief in support thereof (Docs. 43, 44) to which Plaintiff responded on August 10, 2017 (Doc. 46). On September 14, 2017, this Court granted the motion and entered an order dismissing this action against Defendants with prejudice. (Docs. 47, 48).

         On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion entitled “David Morris Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Document Number Three (3) and Relief from Judgments Pronounced and other wise Un-Pronounced”. (Doc. 49). Therein, Plaintiff “seeks the benefits of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60; and 59 and further seeks the grace of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(vi) and related rules and laws under the circumstances.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff's motion is unclear to some extent, but Plaintiff asserts that “without a final Order in favor of Defendant Southern Intermodal Xpress, LLC this case is due to proceed onward …”. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff additionally seems to assert that Defendants did not properly disclose their legal status in relationship to one another to the Court such that the dismissal of this action was improper. (Id. at 3-4). For relief, Plaintiff seeks “that which was prayed for in the Original Civil Action Complaint”, seizure of David Morris' money entrusted to SIX, seizure of the binding “Declaration” authorizing 12-months term life coverage, and seeks that judgment in favor of David Morris “be revived and a hearing held to locate the funds paid [to] Southern Intermodal Xpress LLC and Southern Intermodal Xpress be judicially compelled to acknowledge its “Declaration” acknowledge it computer generated coverage payment receipts and finally pay to the order of David Morris the beneficiary proceeds due therefrom and any other relief deemed lawful and appropriate.” (Id. at 5).

         DISCUSSION

         As for Plaintiff's contention that SIX was not dismissed from this action, Plaintiff is simply mistaken. This Court's Order dated May 15, 2017 specifically granted SIX's Motion to Dismiss which became final upon Plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint to state a plausible claim against SIX by not later than May 15, 2017. (Doc. 37). The record is clear that Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Moreover, this Court addressed Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the Court's ruling adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its Order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (See Doc. 39). Plaintiff's assertion that this action either remains or should remain pending against SIX is without merit.

         This Court construes the remainder of Plaintiff's motion as a motion for reconsideration of its order granting judgment on the record as to Assurant and Union.

         A 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 ...

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.